House Of Representatives Bans Spotify Because P2P Tech Must Be Evil!!

from the clueless-congress dept

Fri, Feb 1st 2013 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

Hey look, here's a story on which we at Techdirt actually agree with the RIAA. Shocking, I know. It appears that, for reasons that are unclear to just about everyone, the IT folks in the House of Representatives have banned the use of the perfectly legal and authorized music service Spotify because it's P2P technology. According to a report at Politico:

"To help protect House data, our IT policy generally prohibits the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies while operating within the secure network," a spokesman for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer told POLITICO this week. "While Spotify is currently not authorized, the CAO has and will continue to work with outside vendors to enable the popular services that improve member communication capabilities."

Not surprisingly, this has led to complaints from Spotify, but also from the RIAA, which finds the whole thing preposterous:

RIAA CEO Cary Sherman wrote to the Hill Tuesday to explain why Spotify shouldn't violate the House's IT policy and to lend a hand in getting the decision reversed: "These services are safe and secure, and assuring access to them not only respects the contractual relationship users may have with these services, but also achieves an important public policy goal of promoting legal, safe digital providers," Sherman wrote.

That's nice and all... though it's entirely possible the reason that there's a ban on P2P technology in the House is... due to the RIAA's own efforts in years past. You may recall that, the RIAA, MPAA and other copyright maximalists have pushed for Congressional hearings on just how evil P2P technology is, and why there need to be more laws about it. Ali Sternburg, at the DiscCo Project has the details:

It may be symptomatic of Congress being susceptible to lobbyists' generally oversimplifying and misunderstanding complex technology. As EFF's Parker Higgins tweeted in response: "The years of indiscriminately vilifying p2p technology are now coming back to haunt the content industry." In particular, the policy may be a consequence of three hearings on filesharing in the House from 2007 to 2009, which received testimony criticizing filesharing: "Inadvertent File Sharing over Peer-to-Peer Networks" on July 24, 2007, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; "H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Protection Act and H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act" on May 5, 2009, before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection; and "Inadvertent File Sharing over Peer-to-Peer Networks: How It Endangers Citizens and Jeopardizes National Security" on July 29, 2009, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This context suggests that maybe those hearings caused technophobic Congressmen to panic, leading to a regulation that is now mindlessly enforced as a part of House IT policy.

She admits this is not definitely why it's banned, but it does seem notable. Perhaps, next time, rather than vilifying broadly usable technology, the RIAA and others might recognize that it can actually be the solution to their challenges as well. Nah... that'll never happen.

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: bans, congress, house of representatives, p2p technology
Companies: riaa, spotify

50 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

maclypse (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 7:42pm

"P2P is evil, unless it's our P2P, in which case it's the dog's bollocks."

Ain't we lucky that these lobby groups run the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 Feb 2013 @ 1:37am
  
  Re:
  I suspect this is the blowback from having so much power. In their drunk on power trips they have created laws that are killing themselves, laws that are going to come back to haunt them. This applies to a lot of lobbyists from industry to employment to political policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 2 Feb 2013 @ 11:11am
    
    Threw the baby out the window already...
    ...which is interesting because I thought Spotify was basically internet radio or a music locker service rather than a P2P sharing application. The ban in question doesn't even seem to apply to Spotify.
    
    Although that's hardly surprising either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Threw the baby out the window already...
      Spotify is definitely P2P. It saves them money on bandwidth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2013 @ 7:56pm

Now that more than half their revenues comes from digital, I want to see them go back to congress and say that all that scary stuff was about the "other guys" not theirs LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 7:57pm

Hey, waitaminute!
I'm *all for* congressional staffers being kept ignorant of technological developments.

Seriously. I don't see a down side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:58pm
  
  Re: Hey, waitaminute!
  You should, because just because they have no clue about a given technology, that doesn't stop them, or even give them pause, when trying to regulate/legislate said technology.
  
  'We have to pass legislation to protect our vital infrastructure from internet-based attack!' ringing any bells?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 7:58am
  
  Re: Hey, waitaminute!
  Tell they start voting & passing laws on that stuff they ignorant about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Hey, waitaminute!
  "I'm *all for* congressional staffers being kept ignorant of technological developments.
  
  Seriously. I don't see a down side."
  
  I'd be all for Congressmen being prohibited by law from drafting, backing, proposing, or voting on a bill unless they can individually demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of all subjects and topics that the bill touches on.
  
  I realize this would bring Congress to a complete standstill, but I still can't see a down side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:06pm

Isn't this the second or third time the draconian policies they've been pushing have come back to bite them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:09pm

And...?
I'll be honest, I'm surprised Spotify was available in the first place. The key phrase is "while operating within the secure network". There might not be an exploit that uses Spotify yet, but odds are it's coming. In the meantime, Spotify is a media streaming service that is eating up House bandwidth, which is likely extremely limited.

The P2P justification is stupid, but that doesn't mean Spotify should be on House computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2013 @ 11:52pm
  
  Re: And...?
  No, The Houses won't be limited by the shitty broadband capabilities of the unwashed masses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 2 Feb 2013 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re: And...?
    No, The Houses won't be limited by the shitty broadband capabilities of the unwashed masses.
    
    I have no doubt that the entire Congressional network is running on high quality, blazing fast fiber-optic cable... right into some massive choke point that loads Google at the rate of molasses and goes down every other week.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 10:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And...?
      Could explain why they seem to hate Google so much...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JarHead, 2 Feb 2013 @ 3:56am
  
  Re: And...?
  The key phrase is "while operating within the secure network".
  
  The P2P justification is stupid, but that doesn't mean Spotify should be on House computers.
  
  Agreed. Even if any P2P should be available in such network, it'll need to be extra precaution measures in such networks, which means more work for admin, and cos we're talking about gov agencies, more tax payer money spent on it.
  
  Anyone for subsidizing gov employees to use spotify at work, please raise your hands...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon B. (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re: And...?
    How does spotify work? I would ban anything that tries to publicly open ports. UPnP? That shouldn't be on in the first place. Is it a bandwidth issue? Does Spotify use a single port I can throttle?
    
    Why do we even care about how the IT people decide to secure their workplace network? I don't see any difference between the government building and any business network, except that the government people may be trying to secure store and transfer classified documents...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JinAnkabut, 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: And...?
  There actually were vulnerabilities in Spotify found in the wild :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: And...?
  Apparently their definition of a secure network is different than that found most other places.
  
  I can hear Nelson saying Haaha
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chad, 3 Feb 2013 @ 11:22pm
  
  Re: And...?
  I agree with this completely. The first thing I thought of while reading the response given by the House IT was not so much that P2P was in violation just because it's a P2P technology, but that it was within their secure network and that regardless, it would be eating up bandwidth. I have placed similar policies in the networks I manage simply to maintain a fair bandwidth cost as P2P services and streaming services eat it up extremely quickly. Do I care if people use free and legal services? Not at all.... Do I care if they spends company dollars (or in this case, government dollars) with no benefit to the company? Absolutely.
  
  Claiming that it's all something to do with a rejection of P2P and was implemented because they don't understand the technology seems to be far from the truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Von Gauss (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:20pm

I Agree
While I appreciate the perceived irony, and I almost hate to say this, but I agree with their policy decision. If it were up to me, I would not allow the service either due to the P2P nature of implementation. While I'm not aware of any exploits, there is simply no justification to open another door to a possible avenue of abuse from either without or within for Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 9:53pm
  
  Re: I Agree
  Which is exactly what any admin's first response should be. Make the bosses demand it if they want another attack vector opened or it'll be your ass when it gets exploited.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 4:13am
  
  Re: I Agree
  As this is your government we are talking about, encourage them to use any and all technologies as a few exploits may allow the citizens to find out what they are up to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:52pm

How many realize CNN uses P2P?
http://www.octoshape.com/cnn-com-using-octoshapes-p2p-for-live-feed/

"Peer-to-peer (P2P) streaming technology has quietly gained acceptance from Turner Broadcasting�s CNN.com, which is using technology provider Octoshape Aps for some implementations of its online live feed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2013 @ 9:24pm
  
  Re: How many realize CNN uses P2P?
  I'm sure one of the two dozen CNN viewers noticed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re: How many realize CNN uses P2P?
    CNN has that many people watching it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- F!, 2 Feb 2013 @ 3:54am
  
  Re: How many realize MS WINDOWS uses P2P?
  ftfy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 11:32pm

Or is this driven more by fear that some Reps are concerned their emails with their corporate sponsors might escape into the wilds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:20am
  
  Re:
  It is driven by the fact that this exposes one of their lies. That P2P is bad and must be destroyed. I mean they can't have congress critters and the like, wondering if other things they have said are also untrue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Milton Freewater, 2 Feb 2013 @ 3:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "It is driven by the fact that this exposes one of their lies. That P2P is bad and must be destroyed."
    
    I believe P2P is good, necessary and essential to culture and freedom. But I'm OK with keeping it off sensitive U.S Government networks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 4:09am

Love Spotify tons.

However that hidden "web helper" tracking process should be ditched, pronto. The House is indeed correct on that point: it ain't secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 4:46am

Having done some very slight work for the government I am aware that at some military facilities there are three levels of security for IT.

First is completely oprn just likr your home environment.

Third is completely secure. Only military sites and equipment.

Second is a combination of One and Three. Open to secure non government facilities such as major suppliers but not open to the public.

Which level of security is being discussed here?

Because if it is Two or Three there is no way that P2P will ever be allowed. If it is level One then there is some technical problem we are not aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 11:01am
  
  Re:
  Given the specification of secure in the discussion, in such a way that implies there is also an insecure network, we are definitely not talking about level one here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 6:47am

Alright, lets look at this from another direction. *WHY* should Spotify be allowed on a SECURE system? It's not an open system, and has no reason to be an open system. It's not like Congress just said "You can't use Spotify at home" or "Spotify is illegal". There is so much shit you can't access from government networks, adding another item to the list doesn't mean anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:28am

Wait... Cary Sherman saying something truthful...
Oh crap hold me, I think its a sign the apocalypse can't be that far off now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:49am

No Spotify
Spotify shouldn't be allowed on any government network or business network. The software is one massive tracking cookie and it uses considerable amounts of bandwidth. Our government networks don't need to wasted on seeding other Spotify users just because Spotify is too cheap to pay for their own bandwidth. And security on Spotify is known to be poor. It openly tracks you, and has been known to serve up ads with viruses in the past.

There is no reason to allow such an application on the government networks. There are plenty of other services that are easier on the network and safer to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: No Spotify
  I see nothing wrong with Spotify, or any kind of internet radio at work, as long as your work is getting done.
  
  If your boss bans it, just set up your own private VPN server at home, make a VPN connection to your home broadband connection, then connect to Spotify, from there, and the boss will never know what you are up to because the connection will be encrypted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: No Spotify
    There is nothing wrong with internet radio, but Spotify is another story. Since it uses P2P. If you have a fast network at work, particularly fast in upload, Spotify will devour as much as it can. For reference, Pandora uses 64kbps for the free service, 192kbps for Pandora One. Spotify uses 160kbps for the free and unlimited services and 320kbps for Premium. And then it takes it a step further and seeds other users. It doesn't take many people using Spotify before the entire network slows down. Spotify also needs software to be installed on company computers. That is a security risk, no matter how big or small.
    
    If a person wants to listen to an on-demand service at work, I usually recommend Rdio because it can be played without installing software and doesn't use P2P. If they just want radio, there are dozens of options out there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
      Have any of you guys tried somafm.com? It's very rad, listener supported internet radio.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re: No Spotify
    It most likely isn't the boss banning it, but the friendly admins from security. Further, the chances of it being banned on your work computer is fairly low, unless you work in restricted information. In this case, you really should have that info locked up in secure servers, rather than on your desktop.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lurker Keith, 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:06pm
    
    Re: Re: No Spotify
    I see nothing wrong with Spotify, or any kind of internet radio at work, as long as your work is getting done.
    
    We're talking about CONGRESS here. When was the last time they actually did their job (note, helping lobbyists isn't their job)? They aren't getting their job done, so...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 6:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
      Au Contrair my good friend. The problem is, Congress's job is to pass laws, and they do their job. A lot. They make up for lack of quality laws with quantity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
      "We're talking about CONGRESS here. When was the last time they actually did their job (note, helping lobbyists isn't their job)? They aren't getting their job done, so..."
      
      But, on the other hand, if you define your job as that which you get paid to do, helping lobbyists is their job.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
maclypse (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:54am

While many raise a good point that spotify probably doesn't belong on a secure system - that's not the amusing part, nor even the point.

The amusing part, and indeed the point, is the RIAA (p2p enemy number one) saying the following about a p2p system:

"These services are safe and secure, and assuring access to them not only respects the contractual relationship users may have with these services, but also achieves an important public policy goal of promoting legal, safe digital providers,"

This makes it kind of problematic to continue claiming that p2p is the end of the world and the devil incarnate. It just doesn't add up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  The RIAA also has a problem with our government employees not being allowed to screw off at work noodling around with Spotify.
  
  The RIAA loves to spend our tax dollars. Woe unto those that block the revenue flow!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DUMBASS POLITICIANS, 2 Feb 2013 @ 10:56am

keep going riaa/mpaa
just keep it up , we humans are slowly getting tired of your shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Randy Zagar (profile), 2 Feb 2013 @ 12:51pm

Umm, I think you're missing the point...
Maybe, just maybe they're operating under the idea that their "protected" systems shouldn't be involved in providing data/ services on a public network...

Many of you seem to be operating under the illusion that you can trust your computer. You can't. It won't always behave the way you expect, especially when it can communicate with a public network. Network communications is never "safe", at best it's "mostly safe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2013 @ 1:54pm

the entertainment industries and all associated industries are totally against everything that
a)they didn't think of
b)didn't think of using early enough
c)makes others money because they could see potential
d)were more concerned with adapting to changing markets than fighting like hell to obstruct them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Guy, 2 Feb 2013 @ 7:45pm

I just wish the House Of Representatives would move to ban the House Of Representatives. That move would solve more problems than it creates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 8:28am

Does anyone recall the time when some idiot congress critter used a p2p program and shared more than just music and video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2013 @ 11:27am

add ||cdn.wibiya.com^$script to your adblock filters to get rid of that annoying bar at the bottom of the page..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]