MPAA Says Net Neutrality Would Hamper Its Anti-Piracy Efforts

from the must-be-a-bad-idea-then dept

Thu, Jul 19th 2007 3:50pm — Carlo Longino

If you were on the fence about net neutrality, this might just push you over: the MPAA has sent a letter to the FCC saying that net neutrality regulations shouldn't be implemented because they might interfere with filtering technologies and foster the sharing of copyrighted content. Like so many things the MPAA says, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if net neutrality regulations covered the use of packet inspection and filtering to weed out illegal content (and it's not clear that they would), the regulations would only apply to ISPs. Despite the proactive stance AT&T is taking in sucking to Hollywood by deciding on its own to try and filter content, few ISPs would want to join them. There's no reason for them to try and filter out copyrighted content: they have no legal responsibility to do so, thanks to safe harbor laws, while spending money to do something that's only going to annoy their customers is generally regarded as a bad idea. It's not hard to see what's happening here, though. The MPAA wants to ensure that net neutrality laws, or anything else, would preclude ISP filtering -- then it's going to push for new laws forcing ISPs to police their networks for unauthorized content.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: net neutrality, piracy, politics
Companies: at&t, mpaa

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

interval, 19 Jul 2007 @ 4:21pm

After all...
Its the MPAA's world, we just live in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2007 @ 4:45pm

Hurray for anarky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt Admin, 19 Jul 2007 @ 5:03pm

Right on, my Brothers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kaligula, 19 Jul 2007 @ 5:25pm

Net Neutrality?
So if Google is so pro Net Neutrality why does he sels black boxes that act as proxy for YouTube content so ISP-s can save some bandwidth? This is not verys neutral to other websites and content providers but hey... it is OK if Google make money by prioritize their traffic.

And why does Google does not care if VoIP traffic is killed by YouTube videos?

And why is Google not concerned if thei r traffic have better rotes already than 99% of other content providers making it self prioritized by lover ping and killing the competition.

Any why... o well... they just want to make some money no matter what. Hm, could this be the answer? Lucky for them that they force everybody to NOT where suit... yes this will save the Internet, lots of guys without ties. Sure... I belive them... always... ultra.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- KB, 19 Jul 2007 @ 9:50pm
  
  Re: Net Neutrality?
  They're a busines you complete ass. Of course they're interested in making money. You can't blame Google because people watch videos and it burdens VOIP networks. That's like saying that Ford is to blame because everyone is driving.
  
  You're an idiot. Come back when you've grown up. Or at least learn to stay on point in these threads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: Net Neutrality?
  "So if Google is so pro Net Neutrality why does he sels black boxes that act as proxy for YouTube content so ISP-s can save some bandwidth?"
  
  So ISPs can save BANDWIDTH. That would save the ISP money give its users faster loading from YouTube and have more bandwidth for things like VoIP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles Griswold, 19 Jul 2007 @ 5:26pm

Another OT Post.
Requiring registration is kind of a pain in the derriere, but if it would stop this kind of irritating spamming by idiotic A/Cs, I would be all for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles Griswold, 19 Jul 2007 @ 5:33pm

Re: The MPAA
"MPAA Says Net Neutrality Would Hamper Its Anti-Piracy Efforts"
Be still, my bleeding heart. *rolls eyes*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobo, 19 Jul 2007 @ 5:42pm

Carlos is a pretty bad writer but this one is better then most of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Doe, 19 Jul 2007 @ 6:17pm

Filtering will take money, so I'm guessing if ISP do use it, then they'll pass this cost on to their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dosquatch, 19 Jul 2007 @ 7:14pm

Wahh!
'nuf said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
natron, 19 Jul 2007 @ 7:33pm

Legislation?
In every group there is a bell curve, even among the dinosaurs. There must have been a few really smart ones at the front end of the curve who realized when the first asteroids started pummeling down that the end was near. But the group near the bottom of the gene pool probably sat around and tried to pass laws trying to block the destruction of their way of life as they knew it. I can see the Goshen Indiana Buggy Whip Company suing to block the sale of automobiles because it damaged their income stream. Hey, MPAA, its time to find a new way to make money instead of lamenting how hard it is to protect your way of life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economist, 19 Jul 2007 @ 7:53pm

Buggy Whips
In the end, the buggy whips went under, because people stopped buying them.

Perhaps we should help MPAA join them in the hallowed halls of long-dead history. Just say no to MPAA members' most profitable products, first-run movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economist, 19 Jul 2007 @ 7:53pm

Buggy Whips
In the end, the buggy whips went under, because people stopped buying them.

Perhaps we should help MPAA join them in the hallowed halls of long-dead history. Just say no to MPAA members' most profitable products, first-run movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shalkar, 19 Jul 2007 @ 8:19pm

My Rant:
Make sure to write your congress people, mayor and governor. Let them know you are FOR Net Neutrality. Make'em think that how they vote for Net Neutrality will sway your vote one way or another. With companies like the MPAA you have to be the brick wall for their car. They think they can drive that care through you, and what is quite obviously the right path, as if you were a wall of glass. So instead, let us be a brick wall for their car.

Let us tear asunder their great machine. Let us fight them tooth and nail. We will not only stomp them into the ground and keep stomping long after their final movements. Then, let us deficate upon their graves. NO MERCY!!! The only "piece" they will find is within death itself!'

Firstly, only buy the REALLY good stuff that you LOVE and are going to watch over and over. Secondly, if it's anything else, rent it to see it. They only get the money once from the company buying that DVD. So then how many people get to watch that DVD? Quite a few I'd bet! So then, in that way, we take out a large chunk of their money that way. Personally, if you have the bandwith for it and your computer can handle it, I say go ahead and share the stuff! After all, what can they do? Scare a handful away? The only people they scare off are the people who don't know what their doing! The leachers! Who cares about them!

I can't fully express my hatred for archaic things like the MPAA that have no place in this world. I am not nearly articulate enough. The MPAA, RIAA and OPEC are all the same in my eyes. They're greedy and they want to be able to sit back and have an unlimited amount of money thrown at them until they have it all. GREED is what's making this world sick. GREED is what's making so instead of humanity working together, (to a great extent as all of us working together isn't just greed, but nationality and the like), we fight each other and "hide our notes" from our "classmates" in the "classroom of life".

May God almighty in heaven give them herpaids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2007 @ 9:01pm

"GREED is what's making so instead of humanity working together, (to a great extent as all of us working together isn't just greed, but nationality and the like), we fight each other and "hide our notes" from our "classmates" in the "classroom of life"."

Greed was of course once very anti-Christian but nowadays people who are greedy are exalted above everyone else. Those who lie, steal and cheat to become rich are held high on a pedistal for us all to worship.

In fact I would say greed has become the primary national pastime of America. It is a sickness that spells the decline of our civilizations. The reduction of human beings to debts and numbers is a sad commentary on our civilization.

Blame the victim and suppress the people is the name of the game. Keep them dumb and reproducing so we have a large base for our pyramid of lies and shame. This is what it truly means to be a US citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2007 @ 9:30pm

Yeah, yeah, yeah they'll twist anything to say that it hampers their anti-piracy efforts. The internet could shut down tomorrow and they would still claim that p2p was still ruining their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bshock, 19 Jul 2007 @ 9:57pm

Maybe they have something there...
What if net neutrality did indeed interfere with the MPAA's "anti-piracy" activities? (Okay, what if the sky were green and the sun were purple, but I digress.)

Let's say that the MPAA is allowed to bribe or bully ISPs into filtering all allegedly infringing content. Since online content might be more likely to increase interest in media rather than decrease it (a ridiculously radical concept, I know, rather like commercials or, gasp, free samples), the MPAA could in effect be shooting itself in the foot. This doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.

Now, if we could just figure out a way to get the MPAA to shoot itself in the heart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfger, 20 Jul 2007 @ 4:49am

the reason it interferes...
...is that the MPAA doesn't want to do the work themselves, they want the ISPs to do it for them. More to the point, they want lawmakers to require ISPs to do it for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R3d Jack, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:19am

The enemy of my enemy...
I don't understand the ramifications of Net neutrality in the least, but, as of now, I'm for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
m_c, 20 Jul 2007 @ 12:10pm

I have mix feeling about net-neutrality...
If prevent asshole like MPAA/RIAA doing stuff not suppose to than I'm for it..
but give too much power to ISP and they may try filter shit in favor for there partner and shit.. I think net-neutrality should be review and fix some the loop hole and keep internet as is but regulate greedy fucker wanna restrict/filter/etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shun, 20 Jul 2007 @ 12:42pm

Yo, MC
Net Neutrality, or at least the idea of it, since we have seen no practical implementation, would not give any one ISP "too much power". The concept of net neutrality is that those who own the pipes have no right to decide what content gets shoved through those pipes.

Anyway, I'd like to point out that most of these debates are all about Us vs. Them, Greed vs. Need, Rich vs. Poor. Although I agree with many of the points here, I believe that there is a fundamental issue that we are missing. See, in the US, we complain that there's not enough bandwidth for both YouTube and VOIP, so one of them has to get the chop.
Other countries have figured out the solution : increase the bandwidth.

Here : fight over who gets a bigger slice of the ever shrinking pie. Rest-of-world : find ways to increase the size of the pie. No wonder we're losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: Yo, MC
  
  Here : fight over who gets a bigger slice of the ever shrinking pie. Rest-of-world : find ways to increase the size of the pie. No wonder we're losing.
  
  That's the American corporate mentality for you. They think that having 100% control of a 10,000 customer market is better than have 50% of a 100,000 customer market. And in the board meeting where they only talk about how much of the market they have command over 100% sounds a lot better than 50%.
  
  Corporations have managed to snow themselves over with charts, graphs, projections, and other analytical nonsense that they don't see the real numbers anymore.
  
  Take a look at cell phone, satellite tv, and internet providers. Notice how they always have a new deal for new customers only? That way they can constantly attract new customers. Why you ask? Growth. It sound much nicer to tell the executive board that they brought in 10,000 new customers last year (neglecting to say that they lost 8,000) than to say they only brought in 5,000 customers. You notice that I didn't say anything about keeping current customers happy? Well they don't either. They are only concerned with bringing in new customers regardless off how many they lose so they can brag about being, "The fastest growing..." in their market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]