Says will eliminate any benefit from encryption while “protecting” users.
There’s an interesting new video from the recent State of the Net Conference up on Public Knowledge, in which the RIAA’s Cary Sherman discusses ISP content filtering, encryption, fair use, and what role govt should play in it all.
The video is an abridged version which nicely focuses on his answer to 4 important questions, and at the same time points out the fallacy of each.
What’s the RIAA’s stance on content filtering?
Notes that is a “technological problem” with “technological solutions.” But, the method he cites is pure fantasy. He says that content filtering is a “targeted approach” that “doesn’t stop all copyrighted works, only those that have actually been claimed by copyright owners.”
Say what?
He also says it shouldn’t be feared by privacy advocates, though he fails to address why it may be bad to have ISPs monitor each and every packet of data transferred across their network for copyrighted material.
What about encryption?
This is where it gets interesting. Sherman says that filters can be placed in “the applications” or “placed on end users computer that could eliminate any, uh, benefit from encryption.”
For “When people start moving to encryption and so on, they know they’re engaging in illegal conduct,” he continues.
Oh really. It couldn’t be because they just appreciate their privacy?
What about fair use?
“Record companies and copyright owners rely on fair use as much or more than anybody because everything that they do is built on things that other people have done,” Sharman says.
He makes another outrageous claim here in which he compares content filtering to seatbelts and airbags as though it could actually save lives as do they. Talk about a insane.
Should Congress mandate filters for ISPs?
Though praises a European-style regulatory approach, he says that he prefers a “marketplace approach.”
He then oddly says that proper network traffic management mandates the need for content filtering as if they go hand in hand. Apparently, in his opinion, network traffic management can be used to educate users that what they’re doing may be illegal and therefore choose to stop. It wouldn’t be used for “blocking or stopping a transmission, but using it as part of a notification system.”
I’m sure the RIAA would be satisfied with ISPs simply notifying users of possible illegal practices and not ask to have its notified as well so it could follow up on the matter. Especially after its legal practices have been full of so much “restraint” up until now right?
May I Legally Rip My CD to My iPod?
Interestingly enough he doesn’t take a position on its legality, says that they simply “don’t object.”
Figures, for I think the RIAA would love for nothing more than for it to be illegal to make any copies of music albums, digital or otherwise.
Moreover, several times Sherman seems to see a future in which your ISP, modem, PC, router, and perhaps even your anti-virus software all work in tandem to protect the profits of the record industry.
Nothing could be scarier.
Related Posts
- Australia Continues Plan to Have ISPs Filter ‘Inappropriate’ Content
- Software Anti-P2P Group Backs “Three-Strikes,” Content Filtering
- Dutch ISP Appeals Ruling that it Must Filter Pirated Music on its Network
- Limewire: ‘Congress Should Make ISPs Filter Copyrighted Content’
- IFPI Wants ISPs to Filter Content, P2P Programs, and Websites
Loading ...
Embrace filtering and save lives – TODAY!
If RIAA really expects content filtering to be done on the user end they’re out of their minds.
RIAA are a bunch of twits.. How can they seriously propose this. And as for the comments.. ” When people start moving to encryption and so on they know they’re engaging in illegal conduct” WTF? These guys need to be taken out and shot.
If i vpn to my place of business I expect it to be encrypted is it illegal ? Dickheads honestly.
Well the moment that software starts agreeing to this is the moment the mass exodus to linux beings it may not be able to support the newest gear (due to programmers not supporting it as much as it’s inability to run current windows programming) however I’ll be damned if I would use a program that snitches on me I have a hard enough time bringing XP to play along I won’t even touch vista.
Just do all your AV checking on the linux box then transfer it over to the winbox if you can’t run it on ‘nix.
Mord Sith it won’t really matter if they get Symantec or McAfee in on this because there are many great alternatives. Who cares who they get to work with them. We’ll always find untouched alternatives without having to switch the OS.
There are many legitimate uses of encryption – it is not used for the purpose of distributing copyrighted content. After all would you buy anything online that didn’t have some security encryption?
I’m more worried about trusted computing coming into play. They already have the computer industry on board they are just trying to figure out a way to have the public approve. Also their have been talks of having trusted computing being introduced at a processor level not software so it would be much harder to bypass.
Good thing I make my own PCs from parts it’d be kinda hard to do it at the processor level without damaging the output speed of the processor or creating an additional lump on the processor’s top cap not to mention the required board implementation to read the data off of a hard-drive correctly with a clone the planets would have to align to get all the hardware to even be barely in sync enough to begin reporting or implementing it’s dark code. Not to mention the fact that most people that buy custom parts aren’t going to pick something that they know tracks their movements.
True enough about the AVs however I’d rather have a linux DLbox due to it’s low RAM footprint (mostly) and it’s noticeably less vulnerability to malware attacks. This would just give me one more reason to do so than I already have :/
“#6 I’m more worried about trusted computing coming into play. They already have the computer industry on board they are just trying to figure out a way to have the public approve. Also their have been talks of having trusted computing being introduced at a processor level not software so it would be much harder to bypass.”
The “public” would NEVER approve and haul their ass into court if they ever tried it. And they know it.
Too many ways it can be abused and it would be challenged on grounds of invasion of privacy.
To my knowledge AV’s have been deleting cracks from people’s machines for some time now – typically labeling them as a trojan or a gatecrasher etc. and auto-deleting them – even when they were tested and verified to be clean. The solution thus far has been for release groups to simply modify the installation package itself so it comes ‘pre-cracked’. Some pieces of cracked software cease to run once the crack is deleted but when the software installation gets modified to be installed in full to begin with it seems to stop the AV’s from causing the content protection to kick in and block you from using the software.
Having that in mind I doubt it’s possible to propose to AV’s to block/delete things like songs or video. It’s not as simple as nuking a DLL file or modifying a string in the registry. A file can be compressed in practically an infinite number of ways to begin with – let alone putting additional encryption to the files to begin with. It’s effectively a fools errand.
I suspect that this is why there has been a push lately to ISP’s. Can’t target file-sharing programmers most of the popular stuff is open source and unstoppable. Can’t sue enough people to deter the rest because of the ‘winning the RIAA lottery’ syndrome – not to mention that this doesn’t help their anti-competitive moves online. Can’t shut down the networks because it’s all decentralized. Can’t pollute the files anymore because the hashing is too strong now. Can’t find all the trackers because there are just way too many of them – let alone trying to knock out TPB which only happened once and it was back up in a day after all the resources wasted. Can’t just tell people to stop exploring new avenues of music they just get laughed at. Can’t just set up a legitimate site and sell music because others can do that thus destabilizing a monopoly. So the most viable alternative is to turn to the ISP and tell them to be “copyright cops”. It’s the only thing centralized still and once the multi-billion dollar companies are siding with you it’s not likely that people will get together and build their own multi-million dollar backbone and feed the fiber optic cables to billions of homes. Targeting ISP’s is their best shot at this point in time to control the internet – something even the DMCA protects against in the first place.
Next thing you know. they’ll be wanting to install chips in webcams that tells the government if the user is downloading illegally.
man dunt give em ideas lol….
AVG has started detecting “threats” in executables of emulators. I’ve been using them for years and when scanned with other AV they passed clean. Since AVG doesn’t allow you to select an ignore option with detections you have no choice but to let it quarantine it and even if you choose to shut down the guard it will still lock the file so you can’t use it. Don’t want to use AVG but on my two slower pentium 2 machines it’s the only free option I know of.
Just the fact that you can’t tell it to leave something alone had me wondering.