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.
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: internet, protect ip, security
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Would that be a huge dose of schadenfreude pie you're asking for? Why, Yes, yes it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...........Straight to the lawyers that support this legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
keep widening the gap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take it a step further
Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i do wish to start seeing bad shit happen to those who think they can take away freedom in the usa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dave - Gets popcorn and waits for the ensuing chaos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gonna go get some British television from BitObama in their .GOP file format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The idea is interesting, and I definitely would consider it one of the many economic solutions that exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix It Nerds
The internet will then be broken, because the U in URL will no longer be universal. It will just stay broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much law do we need?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much law do we need?
Soon™
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much law do we need?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think its worse than that.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, in this day and age, it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes this place look so, well, complete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amazing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Luckily, that is a fetish of mine.
Love, ex-Rep. Anthony Wiener
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, technologists don't have the money nor the high visibility to get the notice of a politician. Its really not that surprising that this will be ignored until its [nearly] too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So....
"Dammit, STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just report and move on. No need to feed this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1
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,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://mafiaafire.com/
And apparently they're working on some kind of secret project on the chance that this does go through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our elected officials will buy it because that's what the entertainment industry is selling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one more time and slowly
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rogue Sites
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE USA IS BROKE
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]