Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Internet Your Rights Online

MPAA Looks to Sniff Internet2 Traffic for Sharers 485

Posted by CowboyNeal from the shakedown-breakdown dept.
Danathar writes "It looks like the MPAA is pretty scared that Internet2 users are able to trade movies at high speed without them being able to know what's being traded, since you have to be a member of the Internet2 network to have a connection. As a result, they are asking to become a member."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Looks to Sniff Internet2 Traffic for Sharers More

MPAA Looks to Sniff Internet2 Traffic for Sharers

Comments Filter:

  • Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:44PM (#10860549)
    No.

    Love,
    Internet2

    • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dagrush ( 723402 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:49PM (#10860592)
      Dear Internet2,

      Prepare to be sued for obstruction of justice.

      Love, MPAA

      • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 19, 2004 @12:06AM (#10861756)
        Dear MPAA, You are not yet part of the DOJ. Love, Bush

        • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:3, Funny)

          by jimicus ( 737525 )
          Dear Bush,

          That's what you think.

          MPAA

          PS: Remind us, how much have we given you in campaign contributions?

          • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:3, Informative)

            by kneeo ( 10487 )
            Most large businesses give money to both parties. This link [opensecrets.org] here shows what the "movie production" gave to the parties in the last 8 election cycles. It's almost 3 to 1 Democrat to Republican. I wouldnt say that the MPAA controls Bush.

      • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Dear MPAA, Got a warrant? Love, Internet2

    • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:54PM (#10860636)
      > No.

      They didn't quite hear it the first time.

      Then again, they didn't hear us the first time Internet1 laughed in their face of their business model, reached down its throat, cut through its esophagus, pulled out its still-beating heart, seasoned it, grilled it, ate it, shat it back out through a million fileservers, and shoved it back down its still-steaming gullet.

      So it's not too surprising they didn't hear it the first time on Internet2.

      • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Funny)

        by worst_name_ever ( 633374 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:12PM (#10860742)
        shat it back out through a million fileservers

        Thanks, you've just put me off of downloading music completely. Good job, you've accomplished what the RIAA never could.

        I mean, eww.

        • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:3, Interesting)

          by brilinux ( 255400 )
          Thanks, you've just put me off of downloading music completely. Good job, you've accomplished what the RIAA never could.

          You know, it is funny, because I just started downloading music, and I use the I2HUB thing since I am at Carnegie Mellon, and it is great stuff. It is a shame that I did not get into this illegal stuff earlier. And now, like five days after I started doing it, there is a possibility that I might get sued. Oh, well. I am not addicted yet.

          • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Insightful)

            by wannasleep ( 668379 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:20PM (#10861182)
            not really....
            This is a world where selfish people are rewarded. Hence, if you download music but then do not share it (i.e. you keep it for yourself) you are not doing anything illegal. It is illegal you (for now) to share, because essentially you are giving the right to somebody to listen to the music, but you are not paying the owner of the copyright. Essentially, you are doing what iTune does, but without authorization.
            Napster got burned not because they were supplying the program, but because they were supplying the servers, hence they were helping the infringment. Same difference between supplying a gun and helping somebody to shoot.

        • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Funny)

          by Panther_Wyvern ( 787921 ) <pandarsson@sbcglobal.net> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:32PM (#10861263)
          Hey, I'm worried about my copyrighted materials, too, ya know... so, um... hook me up?

      • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dotwaffle ( 610149 )
        What is suprising me is that they are applying for a licence to act as the Police - not mentioning that they could in fact use the bandwidth to stream legal movies to students! Come on, there is a massive opportunity here to set up a working system that students will not only use, but enjoy, and it WILL cut down on piracy. Don't threaten your users - it only increases ill-will, bad sentiment, and people are unlikely to buy your product! Come on MPAA! Get your act together! Stop trying to punish people and j

    • Re:Dear MPAA, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:01PM (#10860679)

      Dear MPAA, Here's your answer [floggle.com].

    • MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:33PM (#10860865)
      I just got through reading the latest New York Times magazine which featured many long and detailed articles on DVD and the movie industry.

      The amount of disturbance to the industry caused or even potentially caused by Div-X converting and downloading is so tiny compared to the amount of resources and ill-will generated by their heavy-handed response to this so-called threat that one must come to the conclusion that the MPAA leadership is mentally unbalanced.

      They are acting like the people who wash their hands ten times after touching a public door handle. They just aren't being rational.

      The NYT Magazine articles mentioned that each DVD sale of $15 brings $9.00 of pure profit to the film studios that they don't have to share with anyone. This is the source of all the profit in the film industry. This is the fuel that is making the current entertainment boom possible.

      Hundreds of millions of DVDs are sold each year and billions will be sold in the coming years.

      Why are they so obsessed with ten thousand or so people sharing rotgut quality Div-X copies? Especially when each one takes several hours to download?

      Even at minimum wage the wages for the amount of time spent downloading a stupid DivX is more than the price of a pristine DVD of the same title.

      Nothing about this makes any sense.

      It will probably just fade as embarrassment when the MPAA actually examines the real numbers involved and comes to its senses.

      • Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder (Score:5, Funny)

        by Phleg ( 523632 ) <stephen AT touset DOT org> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:25PM (#10861221)

        Even at minimum wage the wages for the amount of time spent downloading a stupid DivX is more than the price of a pristine DVD of the same title.

        Perhaps you haven't realized this, but computers can be left on while you pursue other activities.

      • Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder (Score:5, Insightful)

        by imuffin ( 196159 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:38PM (#10861301)
        Movie trading is a relatively new phenomenon. I think they've seen what P2P has done to the music industry, and they're taking pre-emptive action. Those who download MP3s are addicted to it. It may be too late for the RIAA. But if the MPAA can nip movie downloading in the bud before it starts, they may greatly delay their demise.

        The amount of disturbance to the industry caused or even potentially caused by Div-X converting and downloading is so tiny compared to the amount of resources and ill-will generated by their heavy-handed response to this so-called threat that one must come to the conclusion that the MPAA leadership is mentally unbalanced.

        Ten years ago, you could say this about the RIAA. Everyone was on dialup, and it took hours to download a single album. Fast forward to now and you can get a whole album in minutes. In 5 or ten years, Joe Downloader will be able to get movies as fast.


        Why are they so obsessed with ten thousand or so people sharing rotgut quality Div-X copies?

        I well-ripped XVID or DIVX movie looks almost identical to a DVD at bitrates that allow it to fit onto a CD. They're even being distributed with 5.1 surround sound AC3 audio. If your DIVX movies look "rotgut," you're downloading the wrong ones.


        Even at minimum wage the wages for the amount of time spent downloading a stupid DivX is more than the price of a pristine DVD of the same title.

        Not true at all. One can search for movies with Kazaa or load a torrent from a web site in the morning, and by the time one returns from work, the download is finsihed, happily awaiting my watchful eyes. Total time invested: 5 minutes. Sure the computer downloaded for hours, but the user can be away doing his own thing.


        It will probably just fade as embarrassment when the MPAA actually examines the real numbers involved and comes to its senses.

        It's not the numbers they should examine, it's the trends. What is a small problem for them today can blossom into a huge one in a few years.

        Don't get me wrong. I think that the MPAA is doing some really terrible things. I don't want to get sued for downloading a movie that I own a license for but is damaged. And I don't think that suing a customer base is a good way to engender good-will. But the consituent corporations of the MPAA are only interested in profit. And intimidating those who use their products without paying for them may actually be a smart strategy to protect those profits. -InsectMuffin

          • Don't get me wrong. I think that the MPAA is doing some really terrible things. I don't want to get sued for downloading a movie that I own a license for but is damaged. And I don't think that suing a customer base is a good way to engender good-will. But the consituent corporations of the MPAA are only interested in profit. And intimidating those who use their products without paying for them may actually be a smart strategy to protect those profits.

          Except it's already backfired on them with me. Pers

        • Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder (Score:4, Informative)

          by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @11:48PM (#10861656) Homepage
          I think they've seen what P2P has done to the music industry, and they're taking pre-emptive action.

          What, pray tell, has P2P done to the music industry?

          'cause the stuff I've read indicates that it's been a benefit. RIAA likes to bemoan the decline of sales, but it turns out that the decline is less than what one would have expected given the economic downturn; it appears, then, that P2P has actually increased album sales.

        • You can *STILL* say it about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @12:56AM (#10861985) Homepage Journal
          One of your fallacies is that you presume that the RIAA is being "hurt" by internet downloading of music.

          They'd like you to think that they are being so hurt.

          But all the studies say otherwise, citing no statistical variance in sales compared to the general economic condition before, during, or after peak Napster use.

          The fact is that the "harm" only exists in the feevered dreams of averice fixed firmly in the deluded heads of RIAA executives.

          The harm to the MPAA might be higher, as really bad movies dont' get purchased or re-rented. Heck, most people who buy DVDs don't watch them more than once or twice. So if somone downloads a marginal movie, they are less likely to buy/rent it by a wide margin.

          Music has a much lower commitment-to-engage than a movie. You can listen to music in your car or on the bus or while you are doing any number of other things. Movies you have to stop and watch.

          Since Music is more re-usable the purchase-after-download factor has to be pretty high.

          I would think for movies it would be otherwise.

          To some extent the MPAA's strongest argument to stop downloading would be to first _GUT_ the RIAA's claims to harm and then show why it's different for movies. Without that infighting the "**AA" effect will damn the MPAA with the RIAA's brush.

          Sucks to be them.

          Solidarity with shit-covered losers will likely result in you finding yourself covered in shit, think about that MPAA...

          • Re:You can *STILL* say it about the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @08:57AM (#10863218)

            Was going to mod you, but then wasn't sure whether you should be a troll, flamebait, insightful or interesting, so thought I'd reply instead. :-)

            One of your fallacies is that you presume that the RIAA is being "hurt" by internet downloading of music.

            They'd like you to think that they are being so hurt.

            But all the studies say otherwise, citing no statistical variance in sales compared to the general economic condition before, during, or after peak Napster use.

            The fact is that the "harm" only exists in the feevered dreams of averice fixed firmly in the deluded heads of RIAA executives.

            It may (or may not) only be in those heads, but it's a good bet that they do sincerely believe it.

            All the usual kindergarten statistical mistakes frequently get made by both sides in this debate, particularly confusing correlation with causation. However, the RIAA execs can see the same studies as everyone else. Contrary to popular opinion in some parts, they probably didn't get to those positions by being stupid either, so they're going to be well aware of the negative PR value of their legal campaigns, and the costs of all the lawyers' time to push them.

            Now, if those execs could see that allowing on-line distribution would really make them more money, or had a negligible effect on sales, they would be promoting it or ignoring it. They are trying to maximise their organisations' profits, and you don't do that by spending who knows how much on legal battles that don't help you, or by annoying significant fractions of your potential customer base without good cause.

            Hence, whatever those of you who rip music illegally may choose to believe in order to justify breaking the law, it's a good bet that the RIAA execs really do believe that the illegal song-swapping is hurting their business.

        • I think they've seen what P2P has done to the music industry, and they're taking pre-emptive action. Just what has p2p done to the music industry, other than make the RIAA look like a bunch of tards? Lost profits? I'm a p2p whore, but I still buy cd's of artists I like. If anything, I've bought more cd's because I'm able to listen to more of an artist's songs, as well as listen to other artists that I wouldn't normally hear on the radio. If these people were smart, they could use p2p to their advantag

        • Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder (Score:5, Informative)

          by crankyspice ( 63953 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @03:33AM (#10862508)

          I don't want to get sued for downloading a movie that I own a license for but is damaged.

          Sigh. Have you read the copyright act? 17 USC? You don't have any license for the movie. Buying a DVD does not convey any rights to the copyrighted work it contains (17 USC 202). Further, DVDs are sold for private performance only, which is *not* a right exclusively reserved to the copyright holder (see the enumerated list at 17 USC 106). So you neither buy nor need any license in the copyrighted work. And while there may be a statutorily created right for private copying of sound recordings (aka music), as the Audio Home Recording Act has been interpreted (see the space shifting analysis in RIAA v. Diamond), and while computer software may be copied for backup purposes (17 USC 117), there is no carte blanche rule to "back up" by copying, and certainly not by downloading, a motion picture or audio-visual work. No, the motion picture contents of a DVD are not "software" (though the menus may be). See the definition for a "copy" in 17 USC 101. Thanks for playing.

      • The MPAA affiliates' products have a 150% PROFIT margin. That's insane. Not even Apple does that. Halliburton probably doesn't even get that rate of return on their Iraq "deals". Its highway robbery.

        If I were making 150% profits on basically nothing (the movie's already been made, its just up to some minimum wagers to keep the DVD presses loaded), I'd be doing everything in my power to protect that business model. $6 for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and store profits. $9 into the pocket.

    • Probable situation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by suso ( 153703 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:53PM (#10861383) Journal
      SO let me guess, if the Internet2 body of members rejects them, then the MPAA will take that to mean that they are hiding something and should be watched. So the MPAA lobbyists will harp on congress to pass laws that make it required that all networks that are paid by tax dollars be monitored by any industry advocacy group that requests it.

  • membership huh...well (Score:4, Funny)

    by loid_void ( 740416 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:45PM (#10860553) Journal
    okay, they can join, but they have to sit in the back of the class room and no raising their hands, got it.

  • Can you say: "Hell No."? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:45PM (#10860554)
    So they're asking to become a member of a limited group, for the sole purpose of suing other members of the group?

    Can you say: "Hell No."?

    • Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara,hudson&barbara-hudson,com> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:53PM (#10860631) Journal
      So maybe all of us who code or write for a living can also demand access/membership "just in case our material is being traded".

      All it's going to do is get a bunch of researchers pissed off to the point where they'll set up honeypots filled with all sorts of mis-named files.

      In any battle of wits between the MPAA/RIAA and researchers, it doesn't take much brains to figure out who will win. We're not talking about a bunch of AOL-ing grandmas here.

      • Who said anything about a battle of wits?

        Have the MPAA, RIAA, or even Nintendo every used conscious thought in these decisions? Nintendo sent a C&D to suicidegirls.com because one of their subscribers wrote that Zelda was his favorite game. They're retarded. A battle of wits does not apply.

        Filling up a computer with files pretending to be movies will only cause more headaches for the researchers having to answer to a bunch of C&Ds because their grocery list was saved in a file called "the_matri
        • "...but they can make it up by releasing an "Unrated" DVD of Elf."

          As soon as you said that I looked up Elf to find out how many hot chicks were in it, and all I found was a picture of some former Saturday Night Live actor. Needless to say I was quite disappointed.

          • Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by brianosaurus ( 48471 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @12:35AM (#10861889) Homepage
            Yeah. I haven't seen Elf, but chose it to emphasize my point. The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters. The studios developed the term with their initial "unrated" releases, which had scenes that were too (graphic|sexual|violent|whatever) to be included in a theatrical release.

            The Unrated version of "American Pie" was much "dirtier" the rated. Standing with a pie held up to your crotch, and laying on the kitchen counter humping a pie are two entirely different things. One version of the scene made the cut, one didn't. When I went to the video store, I could make an informed decision, choosing the rated or unrated version, and getting an appropriate level of bathroom humor and "indecency" from whichever I chose (that'd be the unrated version, Bob).

            The "unrated" version of "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (which had plenty of hot chicks, mind you) is a dissappointment. Nothing that I saw would have made it ineligible for a PG-13 rating. Printing "Unrated" across the leather-clad butts of the 3 female stars on the DVD cover would pretty much guarantee additional sales of a mediocre movie, particularly in the male 18-35 demographic. (I won't fall for that trick again!)

            "Unrated" has been exploited and reduced to a lame marketing ploy (instead of the powerful marketing tool it originally was), that will ultimately lose any meaning to the consumer. Instead of being a way for studios to push the boundaries by releasing films "as the artist originally intended" without the restrictions of the rating system, its just another lying label to be ignored.

            So yes, releasing an unrated version of Elf would be stupid and pointless. That is unless your point was that you could sell a few million more units by misleading the consumer, in which case you'd be right.

    • Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:55PM (#10860646)
      Can you say "bought and paid for"?

      If the feds have any money in the project these little scrotum suckers will get their asshole buddies in congress to let them on.

    • Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:34PM (#10860869)

      Damn straight.

      MPAA is attempting to throw a bone to the Internet2 community by promising "eventual" research projects. Why should their membership be accepted? Their interest in reaserching bandwidth speed on file transfer frequency can be done without being a member of Internet2. If you're attempting to join a (theoretically) academic Internet, at least have your reaserch proposal ready!

      Seriously, I assue that their "negotiations" with Internet2 would likely be one-sided. None of the member institutions would want the MPAA monitoring the network - consider the liability. That's the effective technique MPAA is using to attempt to join - either work with us, let us join, or we'll make your lives hell. Blackmail negotiations.

      If the MPAA joins Internet2 and gather potentially unpleasant data, they can use that information to mandate new data standards, new protocols, whatever possible to insure the maintenance of their IP. In other words, they decide the future of the Internet based on protecting copyright. Lovely.

  • first subpoena! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:45PM (#10860558)
    first subpoena!

  • This is a true disgrace (Score:5, Informative)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:46PM (#10860563) Journal
    Laws are designed to help us co-exist with each other, to respect one another and bring order and a set of rules to abide by so that we can pool in our interests and progress as a civilization.

    People or "things" like RIAA and MPAA abuse these laws, which were written to help bring progress. They abuse them into filling their coffers with wealth that is meaningless when it does not really help anybody. More so when it happens at the expense of others, and at the expense of progress.

    Internet2 is primarily designed for scientists and research organizations, to pool in their resources and create a powerful network to facilitate better research interaction. Experimental particle physics data goes over several gigabytes, cosmic ray measurements are tremendously huge, gene databanks are big -- this is the kind of information that these networks are built for. Sure, some kid may be misusing them, but the percentage of people doing this would be far too less to be of any consequence (it has come down from 30% to 7%).

    People like MPAA just will abuse the system, bring in more bureacracy, more rules and more regulations that will hinder how genuine users will use the system. They will wrap it nice and dandy around money and laws, and buy out our corrupt politicians who will dance to the jingle of wealth. And in the progress, they just will affect real people doing real work.

    They are dragging everyone to the level of technology that they can control. Rather than adapt to the new technologies and grow with it, they try and exert their control by legal battles and money. Why can't they admit and move on to an era where their policies and principles encourage the technology, rather than deter it?

    I sincerely hope that they are not let on board the Internet2. And I sincerely hope that one day our society is rid of parasitic savages of the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They're the scum and a disgrace of our civilization. They are the true deterrents to progress.

    • Re:This is a true disgrace (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:51PM (#10860609) Journal
      You are forgetting one critical thing. If they cant get in by being nice they will so one of 2 things 1) sue their way in, 2) just assume that content is being traded illegally without checking (as we've seen before) and just send spurious DMCA notices until internet 2 is beaten into submission. Welcome to the consequences of corporations having 'rights', they get to buy their way into politicians and well to hell with the voters, they dont give enough money

      • MPAA "sniffing" is a laughingstock (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @11:11PM (#10861471) Journal
        I work for a research institution. We have an Internet 2 connection. I'm the security guy, and (as if that ain't enough work) I sysadmin the mail exchangers, including maintaining anti-spam and anti-virus there. If you send email to the abuse or postmaster addresses at our site, I get it. If you send email to our domain contact about a security or abuse matter, he forwards it to me, and I answer it.

        We get complaints every once in a while from the MPAA or their lackeys, claiming that some host on our network is sharing copies of movies -- The Matrix, Harry Potter, Star Wars: Revenge of George Lucas's Crack Pipe ... you name it.

        Here's the funny thing: they're all wrong.

        Every one of them. Wrong. I have never received an MPAA copyright-violation complaint that even had the slightest chance of being correct.

        Here's how I know: We have a ridiculously big IP allocation, several times more than we need. Most IP addresses in our space are not used, and have never been used. Like, say, X.Y.1.1, or X.Y.64.64. And yet it is for addresses just such as these that we get complaints.

        As far as I can tell, the cause of it is that shitheads somewhere in the world abuse our IP addresses behind NAT, instead of using RFC1918 private addresses as God intended them to. And just like with SIP or any other protocol that uses IP addresses in the protocol level to name hosts, file-trading protocols leak NAT addresses.

        The abused addresses get published onto file-trading networks as places to get files. The MPAA's drones pick up these leads, and -- without checking -- give them full credence, and fire off complaints to us. They do not even bother to ping the host and listen for our router screaming back, "You blithering fool, there's no such host. There isn't even such a network!"

        Any network operator who still gives any credence to these complaints is a fool. They are all wrong. Even if I got one for an address that actually had a host on it -- or, at least, had ever had a host on it! -- I expect it would also be wrong.

        Every once in a while I get a complaint from these losers on a slow day, when I have some spare time and am feeling bored in the office. So I put on my slowest, laziest "I've been working a cushy, do-nothing public-sector IT management job for years, I don't know my ass from a router" tone of voice and phone up the MPAA lackey whose number's on the complaint.

        I'm oh so very concerned. There's a pirate on our network? Is he breaking the law? What's his computer? You know -- what's his computer? Yeah, I mean, his eye pee. How do I connect to his eye pee and prove he's got these files? Do I need kazz-uh to do that? Wait ... can I do that legally, or am I breaking the Constitution? What's a pee-to-pee anyway, is that some kind of sex perversion?

        You get the idea. I thoroughly encourage every other research and educational site network operator to do the very same. Waste their time. Get your stupid out. Stall 'em, stymie 'em, but be very concerned that you don't want any of them Internet pirates pirating your Internet. (Or ask if they know where to find hot lesbian porn.) Most important -- keep the stooge on the line; the MPAA is probably paying him hourly.

        • Re:MPAA "sniffing" is a laughingstock (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @07:41AM (#10863048) Journal
          If, hypothetically, you were to be subcontracted to an external organisation, how much would you charge? $100/hour? $200/hour? Next time you receive such a complaint, I suggest you time how long it takes you to investigate it and write a full report explaining that they are idiots. Send them the report along with an invoice. If they don't pay, take them to the small claims court (where they will almost certainly not turn up, and will receive a judgement in absentia). The next time you receive a complaint from them, send a form letter back to them reminding them that there is an outstanding court order against them, and that you are not willing to comply with their investigation until they have paid the amount they are liable for under law.
          • You've got the makings of a chain letter there, and one that could actually make money for its participants.

            "I sued the MPAA in small claims court and got a judgement against them for $$$, and you can too.

            Please sue the MPAA in small claims court for your time in responding to meritless claims as its billable value. When they default, collect your money. Once you win a judgement against the MPAA, please make n copies of this letter and send them to other people you know who may have received meritless cla

  • what a good citizen would do.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by peculiarmethod ( 301094 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:47PM (#10860570) Journal
    I hereby volunteer to let the MPAA install a camera in my livingroom and bedroom to insure I do not fast forward past ads, initiate a public viewing, or copy any of their bread-and-butter.

    or have lawsuits become their bread-and-butter? *Sigh* either way.. I want to do my duty.
  • without them being able to know what's being traded

    So, they want to know WHAT's being traded. Does this mean that they're trying to establish some new rating system based on how many people pirate their movies? I mean, shouldn't they be trying to STOP file-swappers instead of just looking at what they're swapping?
  • in saying "FUUUUUCK!" Internet2 is the best part of college. Streaming movies on demand at only the price of your conscience.

  • Gonna require one heck of a Network IDS ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:48PM (#10860587) Homepage
    The article mentioned "researchers successfully sent data from Switzerland to Tokyo at speeds of 7.21 gigabits per second" ... and if they want to watch the traffic for "neferious" content, that is gonna require one heck of a Network IDS (Intrusion Detection System - SNORT [snort.org] is a popular open source IDS) to keep up ... and the vast majority of the traffic will be about as exciting as watching grass grow [komar.org]

  • Math problems again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beacher ( 82033 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:49PM (#10860591) Homepage
    First they take the Eternet speed record out of context ( "Recently, researchers successfully sent data from Switzerland to Tokyo at speeds of 7.21 gigabits per second. That was enough speed to transfer a full-length DVD anywhere in the world in less than five seconds, researchers said." ) and make this seem like the standard. I'm sure there just TERABYTES of DVD and mp3s sitting on Internet2 using their "new math".
    Just say NO!

  • Mission (Score:5, Insightful)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:49PM (#10860593) Homepage Journal
    From internet2.edu: Internet2 is a consortium being led by 207 universities working in partnership with industry and government to develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet.

    I don't want to give them any ideas, but the MPAA has a chance at getting in by claiming to want to devise a method for distributing movies legally. However, hopefully I2 will look beyond that and deny them entry...

  • that's not all (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds

    Funny how that's conveniently left out of the submission.

  • This seems simple enough... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazholio ( 314843 ) <[slashdot] [at] [lexal.net]> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:50PM (#10860605) Homepage
    Internet2 was designed (and funded) for use by universities and educational facilities, as well as governments so they could "[develop] and [deploy] advanced network applications and technology, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet." It doesn't really seem as though the MPAA has anything to bring to the table. Their membership application should be denied on that basis alone. Plus the fact that there is simply no evidence that there is anything untoward happening on Internet2, just that it's *possible*.

    Get a life, MPAA.

  • Hmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by methangel ( 191461 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:51PM (#10860611)
    Where can I apply to be a member of Internet2? I want to help .. uh .. sniff for .. uh .. illegal stuff. I REALLY want to help the MPAA out :)

  • I hope they say no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rritterson ( 588983 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:51PM (#10860612)
    Right now Internet2 is primarily a research network, and I think it should stay that way. It's useful for shuttling (large amounts of) research data back and forth, as well as examining new router/switching/etc technology. (No coincendence that many of the speed records are set on Internet2).

    What it doesn't need is the massive commericalization that has occured on good oi' internet 1. Yes, piracy and filesharing that is unmonitored is definately a problem. But the real problem is not that it's unmonitored, it's that students with no need for access to the network have it. Why can Joe DormLiver piggy back on Internet2? Does he need research access?

    They should politely tell the MPAA to fuck itself, and then develop some controlled access. I suggest only connecting research computers to the net, along with a few proxy servers so professors and grad students (and undergrads also doing research) can still use it remotely.

    It would be interesting to do bonafide p2p and network research over Internet2, but that is not what the MPAA is looking for.

  • What would being a member do? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus herbivore> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:52PM (#10860618) Homepage
    Would being a member even make it technically possible for them to "sniff" the traffic? I'm a member of the exclusive Internet One club, and I can't sniff arbitary traffic.

  • Fake 'em out, man... (Score:5, Funny)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:52PM (#10860619) Journal
    Tell them that you've made them members of Internet2 but really make them members of Internet0, wherein there is naught but a group of Haitians trading the complete collection of Ernest movies (Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest Goes to Haiti and Becomes a Zombie, etc.).
    • Or better yet, tell both the RIAA and the MPAA to join that network because thats where all the pirates are.

      Then they'll flood it with their broken files, and inevitably end up suing each other over some similar file names, most likely movie soundtracks. 2 birds with one stone.

  • What would happen if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:53PM (#10860623)
    .. someone were tuning a remote deep space dish, and accidently hit upon a video stream from a commercial satellite... would they end up being sued?

    In any case, if someone can transfer the contents of a DVD within 5 seconds, they they would probably figure out some way of converting the files into something less noticable than an obvious archive of video and audio files. Convert everything into a tar file and convert that into something less noticable like floating-point volume data.

  • microcosm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:54PM (#10860641) Homepage Journal
    There are many good reasons for the MPAA to join the Internet2 research project. Huge bandwidth, multicasting architecture, realtime multimedia: all these features might have a legitimate association excited about the future, and their role in bringing better service to their members and market. Instead, the MPAA has become interested only as a cop, not in contributing to the development of the technology itself. They'll just wait for Internet2 to be developed, at great expense in time, money and inspiration, by others - then they'll eventually cash in. Their only attitude towards the future is fear, emboldened a bit by greed.

    The great lesson here is that Internet2 is only a litmus test. The MPAA acts exactly the same way on Internet1, and everywhere else. We're just witnesses to the miracle of the birth of their racket on Internet2. Burn, Hollywood, Burn (our should I say "Stream").

    • Re:microcosm (Score:5, Informative)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:09PM (#10860726) Homepage Journal
      How the world can change when you actually RFTFA. It's not as bad as the blurb makes it out - Warner is already a member. And the MPAA claims to have been "working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time". But since the MPAA isn't a member of this "members only" network, they're probably just lying about how they've been working to deliver content. That first wild post is probably on the money, minus the credulous "journalism" on the News.com(.com!) site that can't even sniff that basic BS before just passing it on as gospel.

      The same PR reports that "the MPAA is already working with the Cooperation for Education Network Initiatives in California group, which is seeking gigabit-speed connections for California communities by 2010". Look for MPAA sniffers anywhere that packets flow. Not that they don't have the right to look in "public" traffic for booty flying by that infringes their rights. But they'd improve their image a lot more by actually contributing some value to these networks that will earn them billions of dollars, rather than just lying about doing so just to get to install the meter.

  • Where does this end? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by J-B0nd ( 682712 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:54PM (#10860642)
    If the MPAA is allowed on Internet2, where else will they want access to? Your college's intranet? Your corporate network? ISP's LAN networks? There are many other fast network connections where piracy could take place.

  • MPAA is living in a different world (Score:3, Insightful)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:54PM (#10860643)
    Do they have any idea what kind of equipment would be needed to monitor all Internet2 traffic in real time? And how exactly do you determine that a specific bitstream is a copyrighted movie, especially if it is encrypted? I don't think they wan't to "sniff" Internet2, I think they just want to look at everybody else's file shares for any file name with the word "Grudge" or any other word used in a movie title, then sue the owner of the file share. FTP passwords, anyone? How about IPSec?

  • I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:58PM (#10860662)
    Sure, Internet2 is 'members only'. But I think it's safe to say that most if not all of the members have standard commodity connections as well. So anything you can get to from I2 you can get to from the regular Internet, just at a reduced speed. There might be a small number of exceptions, but in general it's true. Being on I2 only affects the path taken by the traffic. It doesn't affect what's reachable.

    I suspect the MPAA wants to be a member more so they can go to the member meetings and make a stink. Keep an eye on things from the inside so to speak.

  • Too bad I'm funding their shenanigans... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crudely_Indecent ( 739699 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:58PM (#10860663) Journal
    I've got about 300 DVDs, and I probably buy at least 1 per week (if not more when I visit the Wal Mart $5 bin). It concerns me that they focus so much attention on the few who download movies. I would prefer that they.....say.....spend that money to develop enhancements to the DVD experience (something that isn't included in an encoded pirate version of any particular movie).

    There have been times that I've downloaded a movie from the Internet, enjoyed it, and purchased that movie from a local store so that I could watch it in higher quality and benefit from the additional DVD features (Southpark Movie). Other times, I've realized that the time spent downloading a particular movie (Blair Witch Project) could've been better spent playing solitaire.

    Sometime soon, I hope, the MPAA will realize that the money they spend sniffing out pirates (who ,like cockroaches, will ALWAYS exist) could be better spent to enhance their own industry....or (more likely to peak the interest of the MPAA) line their own pockets. Litigation isn't cheap, nor is computer/network forensics.

    Somewhere, there is an MPAA representitive reading this article who is thinking "Hmmm....he's right...I could get a raise and people like Trey Parker and the /. crowd would stop hating us"

  • Well shit, it's ruined now (Score:5, Funny)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:00PM (#10860677) Journal
    *starts working on Internet3*

  • government should regulate internet2, not MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by etaluclac ( 818307 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:04PM (#10860693)
    While it seems ridiculous to include MPAA as a member of Internet2 under the pretense that it is helping research, we still cannot let Internet2 turn into a free-for-all of file sharing and illegal movie swapping. There is a reason that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. Intellectual property forms that basis of our society, and certainly it is critical for research institutions that "trade" in information. Being a member of Internet2 should be a privilege, and one with responsibilities taken seriously. Governments and universities are spending millions to get their systems on I2, and it is not the public's job to finance piracy. It would be terrible to see I2, which is quite powerful now, turn into another (regular) internet filled with all its trash, and with all its bandwidth consumed sharing movies.

    That said, I cannot support commercialization of Internet2 or an invasion of it by MPAA just to allow them to sue I2 users. But in order to keep internet2 aligned with its true goals of promoting research, we will have to give some governing council the authority (even imperative) to fight this piracy and THEN take it to the respective IP owners like MPAA. I think it is silly that the burden should fall on MPAA to regulate such things, and it is because of this lunatic system that we are forced to deal with lawsuits from companies who snoop at file sharers. Pirating movies should have a penalty similar to stealing them physically: go to the city court and explain yourself in front of a judge your crime and regret, rather than dealing with expensive lawyers and publicized cases as is happening now.

    • Re:government should regulate internet2, not MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MyHair ( 589485 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:26PM (#10861226) Journal
      But in order to keep internet2 aligned with its true goals of promoting research, we will have to give some governing council the authority (even imperative) to fight this piracy and THEN take it to the respective IP owners like MPAA. I think it is silly that the burden should fall on MPAA to regulate such things, and it is because of this lunatic system that we are forced to deal with lawsuits from companies who snoop at file sharers.

      Did you just suggest a new government organization to find, identify and report IP violations? Do you want the government to put people in jail, charge them money or just tattle to the MPAA and let them sue as they elect? Who's going to fund this governing council?

  • Membership denied (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:06PM (#10860707)
    Hollywood used its lobbying powers to get the DMCA into law.

    The DMCA was used to threaten [eff.org] Ed Felton and his students into silence when they was about to present a research paper on the weaknesses of digital music security. The case sent a chilling tidal wave through the educational system.

    With the spirit that Internet2 is designed for educational and research purposes and the precedent set by the Felton case, Hollywood's membership request should be denied in about three nanoseconds.

    They are not welcome.

  • I2 Bylaws (Score:5, Informative)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:08PM (#10860721) Homepage Journal
    I don't see any membership level listed in the I2 bylaws that would allow even a collaborative level of membership within I2. All of the current corporate members [internet2.edu] have something technical or educational to offer to the membership. The MPAA doesn't as far as I can tell. In fact it want sa regulatory voice within the oranization. Article I, Section 2 [internet2.edu] of the bylaws prohibit all non-Regular Members from having voting rights. Unless of course the I2 Board of Trustees rolls over and lets the MPAA in. Grrr...

  • Wait till they get a taste of IPv6... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Olmy's Jart ( 156233 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:13PM (#10860747)
    Internet2 is a hotbed of IPv6 as well.

    Wait till they get a taste of "privacy enhanced addresses" on IPv6 and find out some of those machines can change their addresses at random and not be tracable (only tracable to the subnet and no address server required or logs kept). They'll have to track'm down by MAC address (assuming no one is spoofing and morphing MAC addresses - how long will that take?) and wire by wire, switch by switch, once they're on the subnet itself, with the "cooperation" of the local techie staff. That's not even counting the really wicked stuff you can pull with multiple addresses (thousands, if you like) and different client and server addresses). BitTorrent already has IPv6 patches and some v6 BitTorrent seeders and servers.

    Hmmm...

    Internet2 + High Bandwidth + IPv6 + Privacy Enhanced addresses = good time to buy in stock in antacid vendors.

    The MPAA and RIAA and going to make for a run on their wares... :-)

    Oh... This is gonna be good...

  • OP doesn't know what hes talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jgaynor ( 205453 ) <jon@nOSPAm.gaynor.org> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:16PM (#10860767) Homepage
    "We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time," said Chris Russell, the MPAA's vice president of Internet standards and technology. "Those would go hand in hand."

    What a horribly unsuccessful attempt to marry two completely disparate goals. The MPAA should be allowed to join the consortium as they have a justifiable interest in high speed delivery research. But monitor traffic? Come on . . . Those goals have about as much in common as Richard Stallman and Carmen Electra (respectively). They have no right to monitor traffic, and as a fairly democratic organization I don't believe the endnode members providers/sponsors would consent to it.

    And for those of you wondering if monitoring of such gigantic flows is possible - of course it is. Netflow export can dump flow data to any number of IDS facilities. Even if you can't watch a single 10GigE link, watch the ten (10) GigE links that feed into it.

  • Being a "Member" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:26PM (#10860812) Journal
    It is possible to let them be a member so they can test their high speed apps but not be able to "sniff" traffic. Just because you become a member does NOT mean they will let you put SNORT boxes at every maxgigapop on Abiline/I2

  • Yeah, I'll need a membership too. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Other Than That... ( 824148 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:30PM (#10860845)
    I created some software or music or something, and I'm just about positive professors are giving it to each other for free on Internet2, so I need to get on it so I can sue them.

    When can I expect the guy to come by and install my connection?

  • NewsFlash: MPAA check snail mail for pirate movies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Steven Reddie ( 237450 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:34PM (#10860868)
    How far will they take this?

  • What will it cost them? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:48PM (#10860966) Homepage
    Maybe the Research Consortium will allow this but with a very heavy entry price? After all the MPAA is known to do that with its members who are outsiders so how about a hundred million dollar setup fee? Think how much research and new gear that could cover. I know in most parts of the world, its typical for a company that wants to join and eudcation group to help its own bottom line will tend to be charged a substantial amount to join.

  • The following two quotes are from the MPAA's own 11/11/04 press release [mpaa.org]:

    "With access to high-speed Internet access increasing, and the movie industry already losing $3.5 billion annually to piracy, Glickman asserted that legal action is necessary to protect the future of moviemaking."

    Must be terrible...the industry is losing $3.5 BILLION a year in revenue? They must just be drowning in the losses!

    "The movie industry's share of the American economy is growing--faster than the rest of the economy. And the copyright industries are creating jobs at twice the rate of the rest of the economy."

    Wait a moment. This industry, suffering these massive, crippling losses from piracy, is doing BETTER than most sectors of the economy?

    Here's the problem, and that is that the MPAA's figure is grossly inflated. Effectively, the MPAA figures EVERY download as a lost sale. (The MPAA's figures on downloading are also inflated, but that's pretty technical and better left to someone who can explain it comprehensively.) However, even provided that they're correct, they presume that EVERYONE who downloads a movie would have, instead, gone to a theater or bought a DVD in place of every download. (They also assume that these people don't do that anyway, and look at a lower-quality download to decide if the movie is WORTH seeing or purchasing on DVD.) This is, quite simply, not true.

    It's time for the **AA's to quit whining. DESPITE widespread downloading, and bad business practices that turn customers away in large numbers, their revenues and market shares grow daily. Given that, it's hard for them to claim that downloads, whether on Internet1 or 2, are threatening to put them out of business.

    • piracy helps good movies (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dougnaka ( 631080 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:33PM (#10861267) Homepage Journal
      and hurts bad ones, simple as that.

      A, um.. friend of mine, has downloaded probably a dozen movies off the Internet. He's bought 4 movies on DVD at full retail from Best Buy as a result of seeing these movies and wanting to have a DVD quality copy/support the makers/etc. Of the other 8 or so about half were bad movies, and he did not buy DVD's. The other half he only downloaded because they were still in theaters, and hollywood's idiotic policy means you can't watch it at home for months after the initial release, so he bought the DVD's once they were out. For example, he had the first 2 lord of the rings on full quality DVD almost a year before the actual DVD was out. These movies he saw in the theater more than once each, and has purchased both the normal versions and extended.

      Again, him pirating movies has led to more purchases, and therefore more revenue for the MPAA.

  • Now all I need is a few GB of RAM apparently.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @12:14AM (#10861792) Homepage
    From the article:

    Recently, researchers successfully sent data from Switzerland to Tokyo at speeds of 7.21 gigabits per second. That was enough speed to transfer a full-length DVD anywhere in the world in less than five seconds, researchers said.

    Too bad it'll take me upwards of five minutes to write it to disk. Yet more proof that hard drive speeds are dragging the rest of the industry down. Damn you Hitachi/Fujitsu/WesternDigital/Seagate/Maxtor. Damn you all.

  • MPAA will get their way regardless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @01:58AM (#10862229) Homepage
    And here's why: even if the I2 people tell the MPAA to go fuck themselves, the MPAA will likely start bribing college kids at member universities to install their monitoring software.

  • Just what we need. MPAA police. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bs_02_06_02 ( 670476 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @05:21AM (#10862761)
    Isn't this best left to the authorities? When did the MPAA think that it was their job to be police? Maybe if they came up with better products, better pricing, different marketing ploys, piracy might go away?

  • Pissing in the wind... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @11:43AM (#10864379) Homepage
    Well as it seems to be time for another Slashdot "*AA debate" I'd just like to add my tuppence worth to the debate.... as in the future there won't be just "the internet" ( or indeed "the internets") to contend with.

    What about networks of bluetooth enabled phones/portable MP3 players/car stereos that each hold several gigabytes of music and which can automatically connect to each other ?

    You want a particular song ? You want all songs by a particular artist ? You're interested in a particular genre ?

    Put search criteria on your devices wanted list and when you come into proximity of another devices that holds what you're looking for it transfers it over while you walk past/are drinking at a bar/are in a club/are sitting in a traffic jam etc. etc.

    "Walkabout" short range P2P.

    And for added social interaction then if someone elses device show the same sorts of preferences as yours it give both of you a little beep so you can start up a conversation.

    Also how about "slightly more powerful than today" local neighbourhood wireless LANS ? Even if you're not part of the full time local network their might be guest channels/log ins/local broadcsts so when you drive through a neighbourhood you join in the local "neighbourhood swap shop".

    But the best is yet to come. How about when storage capacity is available on something approaching, or even on, a nano scale ?

    Maybe someone will create a "smart sticker" which is slightly thicker than todays regular sticker but which holds several gigbytes of data plus a small, solar powered, short range, transmitter.

    Pop that up in a public place and everyone passing can pick up what's on it (so long as they have a compatible device). Guerilla marketing at it's best and a killer way to advertise new bands "come see us at club x on x and here are a few full tunes to whet your appetitie"

    Who knows maybe this "fantasy tech" could even be incorporated into clothing, beer cans, grocery cartons, bricks... you name it.

    So these *AA imbeciles can legislate, bribe and sue until they're blue in the face but they are simply pissing in the wind.

    If they think they're having a hard time with todays technology, then think what the future will bring.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Close