MPAA Boss Makes Case for ISP Content Filtering

creaton writes "At the annual UBS Global & Media Communications Conference yesterday, MPAA boss Dan Glickman banged on the copyright filtering drum during a 45-minute speech. Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected ... and I think that's a great opportunity.' AT&T has already said it plans to filter content, but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"

Freedom?

[Seumas]

People in this country always tout their freedom as the single greatest thing that differentiates them from many other countries. What we filter isn't so much important as the fact that we might filter at all. And if we filter the internet on a corporate or government level, how are we any different from countries like China?

And if ISPs should filter our content, then why shouldn't other service and content providers outside of the internet be responsible for censoring what we consume, say, do as well? Parents can filter what their children consume. I can filter what I can consume. It should stop there.

Has anyone validated these loss claims by...

[Assmasher]

...measuring the drop in growth/profitibility from the first years these jerks started claiming stupendous losses due to piracy? They've always seemed to claim billions in losses, and yet they're industry doesn't seem to feel the effects. The past few years they've been losing money due to iTunes, so that's why I ask about the early years they were crying foul...

Re:Wrong.

[AndersOSU]

I disagree. I think movies have in general been pretty good (contrast with the music industry) and the prices are for the most part fair (although theater tickets could stand to be $2-3 cheeper).

The MPAA doesn't have a problem. It's making money hand over fist. I'm sure Dan Glickman wants more money, but don't we all. The MPAA's core business is selling seats in theaters, and they're doing fairly well, not as well as in the mid-90's but that's a measure of the overall health of the economy. The MPAA could sit back, not make any technological changes, and they'd still do well for probably about a decade (again, contrast with the music industry).

If I were pressed to name the MPAA's #1 issue, I'd probably say consumer ambivalence over HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. I wouldn't say piracy.

pfft

[dgr73]

Filter away.. but wait, aren't they then blocking all traffic of a certain type (bittorrent for example), I mean, they can't really easily and reliably distinguish what is legal and what is illegal content, though i'm sure that certain companies will offer products/services that claim to do just that (hello MediaPretender). If you can only filter by traffic type and not based on content, then all one needs to do to make all the money in the world is:

-start a company that delivers content via bittorrent
-have a few friends "buy" products and then be unable to complete the download
-have them then proceed to mock this company
-file lawsuit against ISP, claim loss of business damages for $100k and $20M in punitive damages
-repeat

Then again, if bittorrent and all other dedicated P2P protocols are somehow filtered, there's still many protocols that can be "hijacked" to carry payloads but cannot really be filtered (IRC, NEWS.. heck, if you encrypt the content, even email).

Try as they might, illegal filesharing will never end.. it may only diminish if they start offering a reasonably priced and featured legal alternative.

Re:Wrong.

[DannyO152]

Well, if the 6 billion dollar figure is correct, give 1-1/2 billion to ISPs to filter and police. Use 1-1/2 billion to pay off the pirates and ... PROFIT!

I'm sure this was already stated but....

[Randall311]

OK so piracy is an issue for the MPAA, but I would love to see the numbers that show which act of pirating is costing them the most money. Is is Joe Schmo on bit torrent in his mom's basement seeding away, or is it some not-so-underground pirating company churning out copy after copy of bootlegged movies to anyone and everyone for pennies on the dollar somewhere over in Asia. It seems obvious to you and I what the correct answer is here, but the MPAA wants you to believe otherwise.

My other point is, that while piracy is a concern for the MPAA, their bigger concern should be getting a quality product to consumers. I think the real money is lost on crappy movies that nobody wants to see. I'm sure they also love to blame that loss of revenue conveniently on oh noes teh piratez!!!111!

hey AT&T

[scharkalvin]

If I EVER catch you filtering *ANYTHING* to my internet connection
you will lose my internet business, my phone business and wireless business
to the local cable company.

filter

[ralph1]

its all fine but if they get all these laws passed and still lose money i want them put in prison for life for crimes against humanity. that is the only fair way for social experiments at my expense.

Re:Wrong.

[FractalZone]

Visa and Mastercard don't try to stop all credit card fraud. They look to reduce it to manageable levels. If a solution is going to cost more to implement then it's going to save then they probably aren't going to run with it. If it's going to cost them more in customer goodwill then it gains them in fraud prevention they probably aren't going to run with it.

You've hit on a very fundamental relationship in finance, risk is very related to reward. A bank than only makes loans to zero-risk customers is going to miss a lot of profitable opportunities. A bank that makes too many risky loans is going to lose it's proverbial shirt. A business must balance its risks so as to maximize its profits.

Any ISP, including the one I use now which is being bought out by Comcast is going to lose my business if it meddles too much in my 'Net activity. I rarely upload much, but when I do, it is usually a one-shot multi-GB file transfer to a client. I have a residential account, but I need to eat, starving grad student that I am at the moment. In a perfect world, ISP would be content unaware -- they'd just move the bits from here to there without question or scrutiny, except in cases where the send has been convicted of a felony related to the 'Net. I've DL'ed some music -- all of which I already paid for on vinyl or disc, just because my collection was in storage 800 miles away. The way I see it, I have a right to listen to that music, however I obtain it at the moment. (This is coming from a guy who has purchased Pink Floyd's DSOTM album in four different physical copies over the years -- regular and Mobile Fidelity copies on vinyl and CD. I've also downloaded the MF version to my computer since my physical copy was out of reach at the time. Go figure.)

Almost anything in the digital domain, and most info is these days, can be copied easily which means it can be pirated easily, too. The MPAA and RIAA ought to wise up to that fact, lest people start getting really serious about bypassing their pathetic efforts and just demand that legislators change the copyright laws.

The cost of stopping all music/video/literature piracy is definitely going to be fatal for vendors who go to extremes to prevent such activity, since a lot of regular customers do what is considered "piracy" now and then. In the long run, the customer is always right.