ISP Tries To Charge Users To Block File Sharing... Ends Up Installing Malware That Exposes Private Info

from the nicely-done,-Orange,-nicely-done dept

Jaime Novoa was the first of a few of you to point us to a series of links about how French ISP Orange has started offering a service to let subscribers pay 2 euros to "block" file sharing services on their connection. The theory, of course, is that this service "protects" you from getting any strikes. Of course, you could also do that for free -- by limiting yourself and encrypting your connection, but that's a separate story. Beyond the fact that this system involves a secret blacklist that could very well block legitimate uses as well, lots of folks started digging into the service and discovered that the software in question is basically malware and ridiculously insecure that more or less broadcasts the private info of anyone who uses it for anyone else to see. So, not only is the program costly, limiting and useless, but it's a massive security and privacy problem as well. All because of three strikes/Hadopi.

Filed Under: blocking, file sharing, france, hadopi, isp, malware, security, three strikes
Companies: orange

AT&T Wants Government Website Blacklists, Hadopi-Style Tribunal

from the ma-bell-daydream dept

Companies like Verizon and Qwest recently took their cooperation with the entertainment industry to an entirely new level -- by not only forwarding DMCA warning letters to users (which has been going on for years) -- but by also now threatening broadband users with account termination (which, at least in Verizon's case, appears to be a bluff). Both companies are using the flimsy and unreliable DMCA letter process as a foundation, and layering a completely non-transparent termination process (where grandmothers wind up falsely accused) on top -- obviously a winning formula for success. So far AT&T hasn't been willing to play along with this new voluntary program, and in filings with the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, make it clear it's primarily just worried about covering its legal posterior:

"Private entities are not created or meant to conduct the law enforcement and judicial balancing act that would be required; they are not charged with sitting in judgment of facts; and they are not empowered to punish alleged criminals without a court order or other government sanction. Indeed, the liability implications of ISPs acting as a quasi-law-enforcement/judicial branch could be enormous."

It's interesting, because AT&T not only argues that ISPs shouldn't be acting as content nannies, but it also acknowledges that the entire DMCA process is built on a platform where such letters can impact non-infringing members of a household, people with "valid defenses," or people with unsecured wireless networks. At first, AT&T's argument reads much like an EFF complaint -- the company even going so far as to insist that (as we've long said) disconnection from the Internet isn't a suitable punishment for downloading that first season of the Golden Girls.

However, AT&T isn't necessarily against some kind of graduated response system -- they would just prefer it if Uncle Sam was the one screwing up. AT&T's filing argues that it doesn't want this handled by the courts, rather, it wants an expedited faux-legal system set up much like the Hadopi-run process we've critized in France, where a Judge is given all of five minutes to determine a user's guilt or innocence. Though AT&T consistently complains about government regulation (at least when applied to them), it takes things even further by arguing the government should "create and maintain a list of international websites known to host and to traffic in infringed copyrighted works."

So while Qwest and Verizon engage in non-transparent threats against their users based on flimsy evidence, AT&T wants taxpayers to fund an entirely new government organization tasked with non-transparent threats against users based on flimsy evidence. For good measure, AT&T wants a website blacklist whac-a-mole program that -- like most filtering programs -- won't accomplish a damn thing aside from pushing pirates further underground and blocking access to legitimate content. Perhaps AT&T should stick with struggling to run a wireless network?

Filed Under: blacklists, copyright, hadopi
Companies: at&t

Recording Industry: Please Ignore Others' Bogus Studies -- Only Our Own Bogus Studies Count

from the takes-one-to-know-one dept

Back at the beginning of March, we wrote about a study that noted that since the French Hadopi (three strikes) law had technically gone into effect, it appeared that unauthorized file trading had increased -- though it had shifted to other means (ones not covered by Hadopi). As we noted in that post, while Hadopi was technically in effect, no enforcement had begun due to data privacy questions. Still, it seemed telling to see the shift in how people were trading files to get around the law. A few days ago, some news sites re-discovered that study and so it got some more attention -- leading the IFPI to start trying to play a neat game of misdirection. Ars Technica points us to a statement from the IFPI mocking anyone who takes such a report seriously:

"It is nonsense to suggest that a study conducted before the HADOPI authority has sent a letter to a single infringing user is somehow a definitive judgment on the success or otherwise of France's digital piracy laws.... We believe the approach will prove successful, but the impact of the law will only be known some time after it goes into effect. In the meantime, surveys like this are pure speculation."

Now, this is the IFPI we're talking about, and if ever there were an organization that knows something about studies that are "pure speculation," it would be the IFPI. Every year the IFPI comes out with one of the more laughable reports on the "impact" of file sharing. The 2010 report is particularly full of baseless speculation, such as claiming that file sharing "harmed" some of the best selling music and movies in the last couple of years.

So, forgive us for asking why we should ignore the baseless speculation from one side, while we're expect to assume that the IFPI's own baseless speculation is pure gold?

Filed Under: hadopi, music industry, studies

Yes, Three Strikes Laws Have Unintended Consequences That Even Music Industry Execs Hate

from the surprise,-surprise dept

As noted earlier, I'm at the Midem music industry conference this week in Cannes, in the south of France. France, of course, has been at the forefront of many of the debates over copyright issues, with its Sarkozy-backed push to be one of the first countries to implement a "three accusations and you're off the internet" policy (despite Sarkozy's political party's own long history of infringing). There really hasn't been that much discussion this year about the whole three strikes thing (last year, it was one of the main topics), which seems a bit odd. However, I did randomly see a twitter message from the guy who runs a travel rental business here in Cannes, Lao Watson-Smith, pointing out that all these music industry execs are complaining about all their accommodations having locked down WiFi (even when it's offered free), and noting that the only reason why these connections need to all be locked down is because of the three strikes laws that they pushed through. And, indeed, it is rather annoying. My hotel has "free wifi" (which seems to go down regularly) but you still need a user name and password, and once you log in with one device it will not let you log in with any other device. You must use that one device exclusively. When the official WiFi went dead, I went in search of other networks, including one called "Free WiFi," but when I accessed that, it still asked me for my username and password (which I obviously don't have). It certainly is somewhat amusing to find out that the music industry execs are annoyed by the consequences of the law they so desperately claim they need.

Filed Under: france, hadopi, three strikes, unintended consequences, wifi

France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo

from the oooops dept

We've been highlighting how Nicolas Sarkozy -- who was the original strong supporter of "three strikes" proposals to kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- and his political party have been caught time and time again infringing on the copyright of others. It looks like that's happening again in an even more embarrassing fashion. The organization that's been designated to deal with three strikes in France, Hadopi, unveiled a new logo... that used an unlicensed font, that had been created by France Telecom and had not been licensed for use by anyone else. Hadopi had to scramble and try to find a new font once called on this, and issued an "apology," but will it allow those accused of infringement online the right to "apologize" as well?

These may seem like minor issues, but they're actually quite instructive. The point is that due to the way copyright law is set up, people infringe unintentionally all the time. Even the biggest defenders of copyright do so. And that is the problem with any sort of system that punishes people for something as minor as three infringements -- and it's even worse when its three accusations of infringement, rather than actual convictions. It creates a massive liability for the way everyone -- even copyright defenders -- do things every day. But, of course, the big powerful folks -- the ones who passed and support this law -- can just apologize and ignore the consequences. Everyone else? Good luck.

Filed Under: copyright, fonts, france, hadopi, hypocracy, three strikes

Will France's Three Strikes Law Matter?

from the we-shall-see... dept

While some are saying that France's "three strikes" law has been delayed until April due to data protection issues, others are reporting that the law is in effect as of January 1st, and people should start getting "warning" messages soon. That same article quotes a French senator who believes that 95% of people will "finish with that bad usage" after the second warning message they receive, but others figure what's more likely is that people will just move on to other ways of accessing files -- ways that can't easily be tracked. My guess is that like when Napster was shut down or with Sweden's IPRED law, there may be a temporary bounceback in sales, but as more people learn of ways to go back to accessing music for free in ways that are less likely to be caught, they will do so. Quickly. As much as the entertainment industry and some politicians have trouble comprehending this, you can't stop what technology allows.

Filed Under: france, hadopi, three strikes