Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Censorship Music Your Rights Online

Leaked IFPI Report Details Anti-Piracy Strategy 88

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the filter-or-it-gets-the-hose-again dept.
hypnosec writes "IFPI has inadvertently made available its own confidential internal report, penned by none other than IFPI's chief anti-piracy officer, which details its strategy against online piracy for major recording labels across the globe. The document, 30-pages long, talks about file sharing sites, torrents, cyberlockers, phishing attacks, expectations from Internet service providers, mp3 sites and a lot more. The document is a global view representation of IFPI's 'problems,' 'current and future threats,' and the industry's responses to them." A few tactics: shutting down music services, requiring file lockers filter uploads or be shut down (interesting, since the DMCA's one good provision is the safe harbor, and proactive filtering could mean losing that protection), lobbying for DNS blocking legislation, pressuring ISPs into extra-legally enforcing their will, disrupting payment processing for pirate sites through blacklists, and providing "training built around 'real world' experiences and challenges rather than focusing on theory" on copyright law to judges and legal bodies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked IFPI Report Details Anti-Piracy Strategy

Comments Filter:
  • by jhoegl (638955) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:14PM (#40766423)
    Move along.
  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BlastfireRS (2205212) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:16PM (#40766447)
    I'm sure it'll make an interested read / skim, but it seems like this is all stuff we've known they've been doing for years.
    • by russotto (537200)

      Yeah, but it provides a little bit of ammunition to the scoffers who claim the RIAA et al AREN'T comic-book style villians, twirling their mustachios and plotting to destroy the Internet.

  • It's a war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cryogenes (324121) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:24PM (#40766537)
    and everything is fair in war (within the Geneva convention, of course).

    In particular, every act of piracy, hacking and cracking is fair fighting against the media companies. Nobody should have any qualms about it.
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      someone should draft and distribute produce a 30 page pro-piracy manifesto in retort to this

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204)
      The geneva convention is a luxury those with overwhelming force can enjoy.
    • by CodeHxr (2471822)

      and everything is fair in war (within the Geneva convention, of course). In particular, every act of piracy, hacking and cracking is fair fighting against the media companies. Nobody should have any qualms about it.

      This is an interesting concept... can an individual, or organization, declare "war" against a corporation and actively try to do them harm and/or destroy them as an organization? Nothing *illegal*, like murder or blackmail, obviously, but more like intentional character (business practice) assassination and such? It seems that "voting with one's dollars" is about as effective as "voting for elective office", given the number of sheeple. Man, I feel like I'm starting to turn into Dr. Horrible. "The statu

      • by exilekg (2691321)

        This is an interesting concept... can an individual, or organization, declare "war" against a corporation and actively try to do them harm and/or destroy them as an organization?

        Of course they can, big corporations do this regularly to the smaller corporations. But this "war" wouldn't fit any universally accepted definition of war so I don't know why would you want to declare anything, just do what you want to do. It is really interesting that a lot of people think that the best solution to any problem is to declare war to said problem, either real war or just "war".

        • by CodeHxr (2471822)
          Well, I didn't mean "war" in a literal sense unless you define war as trying to destroy your enemy. I guess my question was more aimed at consumers being able to band up and actively do something other than just boycott or "vote with dollars". I guess after thinking about it, you're right. I'm just tired of feeling like my piddly efforts mean nothing and that big giant behemoths can, pretty much, do whatever they like *and* get away with it.
  • by oakgrove (845019) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:26PM (#40766563)
    Yay! More ways to download stuff. I was just finishing working my way through this [google.com]list and now I have 30 pages worth of new knowledge to assimilate. Keep it coming!
    • by Inda (580031)
      Woohoo!

      This sharing of information thing they call the internet is wonderful.
  • So Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by carrier lost (222597) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:35PM (#40766667) Homepage

    A friggin' laundry list of privacy invasion, rights violations and technology crippling.

    All because a business model has become obsolete.

    Just incomprehensible if you have even a faint grasp of technology, business and capitalism.

    </grar>

    My suggestion: The Digital Sanity Act [botaday.com]

    (Not that it will make a difference...)

    • I like your Act, but I think it still gives them too much leeway to try to own us.

      I think the expansion of fair use to cover all non-commercial copying is the only way to go (obviously, as my sig implies).

      The various pirate parties are on board with that, as well.
  • by bool2 (1782642) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:40PM (#40766729) Homepage
    To ensure the judges get the "right" result instead of focusing on theory.

    .

    Ok I'm paraphrasing quite liberally there but am I the only one that finds the kind of access these .*AA's have to the judiciary more than a little disturbing?

    Or is this just the latest manifestation of the corporatocracy that's dominating western politics.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      Next time they sue someone they should present this document to the judge, and then go on to point out that the "theory" is actually the key point that an IP address is basically worthless as evidence.

  • He should not have leaked their plans for security. But he didn't leak much top-secret classified information... Everybody knows this stuff already.
    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @02:06PM (#40767065)

      The ISPs stopped providing Usenet..... supposedly to cutoff child porn but now I'm wondering is RIAA was behind the scenes & just using the porn as a false flag to eliminate a piracy vehicle.

      • Of course. Child porn and terrorism are magic words that make people throw out all sense and logic. If they are brought up, it's almost certainly done as a means to accomplish something else. It'd be a total waste of shock value, otherwise.
      • Of course it wasn't about child porn. If it was, the ISPs could very easily just drop specific groups - besides, you don't see them cutting off the web, or email, or sftp, and I'm sure all those can be and have been used for child porn too. The real reason isn't hard to guess at: A good usenet service costs a significent amount to run, very nearly all the data it moves is piracy, and only a very tiny percentage of customers ever use it. Why spend so much for a feature used by a tiny niche, espicially when m
    • by Nyder (754090)

      Usenet

      Well, most usenet servers take down DMCA requests.

      UFC stuff is an example of it. usually gone on most the server 3ish hours after it's posted.

      Oddly enough, that is pretty much the only thing I find like that.

      Not that I download copyrighted materials, that would be illegal. (or Civil Disobedience.)

  • Can anyone provide a link? Or do I have to wait until it starts appearing on pirate sites?
  • Oh Noes, we has leak

    Now people will tell us how this won't work

  • by boorack (1345877) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @02:37PM (#40767481)

    Slightly off-topic, yet still relevant as **AA/IFPI** is one of (many) similiar parts of out corporate world.

    As Nouriel Roubini and few other well known commentators (economists) noticed, hanging a few bankers is rapidly becoming mainstream meme. Hanging a few **AA crooks, hanging few big-pharma crooks, hanging few Monsanto crooks etc. might follow soon. While it is an exaggeration, it correctly reflects popular mood of everyone feeling screwed by those corporate fucks and desire to properly prosecute and jail some more sociopatic corporate offenders.

    What (still) didn't seep into mainstream is translating this popular mood into actions. People feel bad about being abused by corporations, yet they still watch murdoch-media crap, still buy overpriced corporate-crapola-music CDs, still buy in Wall-Mart, still invest their money into Wall-Street rigged game, still believe into "democrats vs republicans" lie and still do not leave home to protest against abuse (except for some OWS folks).

    I hope that with 'hang a few bankers' meme some actionable change will come. When people will stop watching fox news en masse, stop buying crap from **AA crooks en masse, change habits and start buying, investing local, it will severly impair corporate grip on us. People know what's going on and going into action about this is the last step that finally might bring some change (as opposed to Obama's "home and change" lies) - come on folks, get up your lazy butts :)

  • I bought all my music legally, much of it on CDs, some in iTunes. Then I converted it to MP3 and uploaded it to a bunch of "lockers". How are "filters" supposed to determine whether I legally own the music, i.e., whether I have the CD on my shelf?

    • by wierd_w (1375923)

      Don't be silly.

      The media empires of the world do NOT want you cutting your own MP3 files *at all*.

      The filter will work exactly as they intend, byt blocking all mp3 files that are not signed by their PKI private key.

      This will force you to buy mp3s of songs you own the discs to, because you only have a license to listen to the contet on the discs, not to copy it. Your home-cut MP3s are "illegal" in their eyes.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Why should they even try? What are you going to do, call the cops? Sue?
    • That brings to mind the "colour" of bits: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 [sooke.bc.ca]. The concept of "legality" ultimately cannot be properly applied to bits and so attempts to censor based on legality are doomed to fail although I'm sure they'll manage to piss off a lot of people trying.
  • They can already afford to do these stuff completely open.

  • I have stopped buying new music and new movies because of the activities of the rights holders. This will only drive more people away. I just wish the whole entertainment industry would dry up and go away, we'd all be a lot better off.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @04:51PM (#40769193)

    There was a time where I didn't pirate anything. This wasn't because I ever had any moral qualms about it, NOBODY in the world has any right to tell me what large numbers I may or may not store on my computer. Rather, I didn't pirate because I recognized copyright as a useful component of a civilized society.

    Now, however, I see that the big content producers are unwilling to reciprocate that civility. I will stop pirating when Big Content stops bribing members of government, subverting the justice system, and pressuring ISPs into spying on me. Big Content does not have a natural right to the large, entertaining numbers they have registered at the copyright office. Civilized behavior is a two way street, I'm sick of being suckered into walking it alone.

  • Can someone explain that one to me? Isn't DNS blocking so trivial to get around that even legislators were realizing it was a stupid waste of time with SOPA/PIPA? My understanding was that changing one number in the settings to go to openDNS would prevent that from doing anything.

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...