6 ms·

I can't help but notice that I am confused[1] by this six strikes deal. So they're going to invest millions of dollars in a system to monitor and notify ISPs fo

I can't help but notice that I am confused[1] by this six strikes deal. So they're going to invest millions of dollars in a system to monitor and notify ISPs for the purpose of... educating people about copyright? With no significant repercussions? And you can avoid those education steps by just not being with one of the top 6 ISPs? Doesn't add up. But if you read these articles, you'll notice that they sort of gloss over the fact that this appears to be a system for getting IP addresses of infringers to the copyright holders. Once they have that, we already know what they can do with it. The boilerplate suits stopped because they weren't economical, but who's to say that the big content owners haven't found a way to change that equation. MarkMonitor itself could even be that extra term. I think the six strikes education system is a smokescreen. We're being misdirected from a pretty scary fact: the MPAA, RIAA and major ISPs have apparently pooled their resources to create a monolithic peer-to-peer monitoring system. Then they've sent everyone who should be freaking out about that on a wild goose chase of speculating about how the "six strikes" are going to evolve into full-on censorship. But that's not where we need to be focusing our attention. We need to ask what else they can do with the data they collect from MarkMonitor. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/

otakucode 14y ago
I would not be too surprised if action were taken to create a new law which makes it illegal for content creators to sell content directly to consumers. Such laws already exist that prevent car manufacturers from selling directly to the public, and they exist for no reason other than to create an artificial market in which car dealerships can pretend to offer a valuable service. Content distributors are now in the same position. They need to have an artificial market constructed to make it look like they are doing something of value. Consider the viewpoint of a typical person in power today. They see these gigantic social institutions that provide a measurable portion of the nations GDP which might soon be torn apart and replaced by a decentralized, unorganized system with unknown economic value. Much of the history that they believe is worth knowing consists of the creation of massive centralized systems to aggregate supply and demand to solve the problem of distribution (both physical distribution of product and logistical distribution of work). To them, a move to a system where content creators distribute and sell directly to consumers is, at best, a horrifying step backwards. The first step to making sure content creators can't sell directly to consumers, of course, is to insert themselves in the new means of distribution in order to wedge the old distributors into some new place created for them.
- Hoff 14y ago
  Economic Analysis Group Competition Advocacy Paper by Gerald R. Bodisch, US DoJ Antitrust division http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm
- tptacek 14y ago
  Exactly how do you propose that any statute could be devised to forbid the sale of "content" to consumers? If you can do that, you can just as easily forbid the sale of anything colored blue, or of books containing the word "prickleberry". The Constitution has something to say about that. If you're going to argue that the content industry --- which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way --- is so powerful that it can simply disregard the Constitution, what's left to argue about? Here, allow me to win the resulting debate: "the content industry is going to get a law passed that will establish the death penalty for piracy". Oh no!
  - chaostheory 14y ago
    > The Constitution has something to say about that. It has some say, but lately it's been repeatedly ignored. > which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way Unfortunately, I feel that the content industry lobbies way more than the Internet industry as a whole. This is slowly changing, but we still give far less political contributions than they do.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, then what's to argue with? If they can do that, they can do anything. Disney can charge you not only for copying Mickey Mouse, but for also for simply having mice in your house.
      - chaostheory 14y ago
        > If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, I didn't say that. I was implying that the gov can, and it has been. Guess who lobbies the gov with more money?
wmf 14y ago
system for getting IP addresses of infringers to the copyright holders That's not how it works.
- chaostheory 14y ago
  How does it work?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    The other way around, I'm going to assume he meant "get the home addresses of file sharers from their IP addresses"
    - mistercow 14y ago
      No, I did not mean that, because that's not what it does. It pretty clearly monitors p2p networks, finds the IP addresses, and then notifies the ISPs. If you read closely, you'll see that it also passes the IP along to the content owners. In other words, it sounds like this does exactly what they did all along to catch people on BitTorrent. The difference is that instead of hiring various independent companies to do the policing (which ended in a lot of false positives, probably because those companies were trying to turn over as many IPs as possible), they've pooled their resources to create a single streamlined process. Now there are a couple of reasons they would want to downplay the real purpose of this system. First, ISPs aren't going to get on board with a "help us sue your customers" plan. But "help us educate your customers about copyright" is probably appealing to an ISP. And as far as the public is concerned, it's a good bet that some details of this would have gotten leaked if they had tried to just keep it under wraps. Talking about it openly, but downplaying its primary purpose, is an easy way to solve that problem.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        Whenever you connect to a P2P system you are advertising your IP address publically, so it requires no conspiracy to get them and certainly no violation of privacy. They want to educate customers about not running open wireless networks etc so they find it more difficult to argue "oh, my wifi was open so it wasn't me".

otakucode 14y ago

I would not be too surprised if action were taken to create a new law which makes it illegal for content creators to sell content directly to consumers. Such laws already exist that prevent car manufacturers from selling directly to the public, and they exist for no reason other than to create an artificial market in which car dealerships can pretend to offer a valuable service. Content distributors are now in the same position. They need to have an artificial market constructed to make it look like they are doing something of value. Consider the viewpoint of a typical person in power today. They see these gigantic social institutions that provide a measurable portion of the nations GDP which might soon be torn apart and replaced by a decentralized, unorganized system with unknown economic value. Much of the history that they believe is worth knowing consists of the creation of massive centralized systems to aggregate supply and demand to solve the problem of distribution (both physical distribution of product and logistical distribution of work). To them, a move to a system where content creators distribute and sell directly to consumers is, at best, a horrifying step backwards. The first step to making sure content creators can't sell directly to consumers, of course, is to insert themselves in the new means of distribution in order to wedge the old distributors into some new place created for them.

Hoff 14y ago
Economic Analysis Group Competition Advocacy Paper by Gerald R. Bodisch, US DoJ Antitrust division http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm
tptacek 14y ago
Exactly how do you propose that any statute could be devised to forbid the sale of "content" to consumers? If you can do that, you can just as easily forbid the sale of anything colored blue, or of books containing the word "prickleberry". The Constitution has something to say about that. If you're going to argue that the content industry --- which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way --- is so powerful that it can simply disregard the Constitution, what's left to argue about? Here, allow me to win the resulting debate: "the content industry is going to get a law passed that will establish the death penalty for piracy". Oh no!
- chaostheory 14y ago
  > The Constitution has something to say about that. It has some say, but lately it's been repeatedly ignored. > which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way Unfortunately, I feel that the content industry lobbies way more than the Internet industry as a whole. This is slowly changing, but we still give far less political contributions than they do.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, then what's to argue with? If they can do that, they can do anything. Disney can charge you not only for copying Mickey Mouse, but for also for simply having mice in your house.
    - chaostheory 14y ago
      > If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, I didn't say that. I was implying that the gov can, and it has been. Guess who lobbies the gov with more money?

wmf 14y ago

system for getting IP addresses of infringers to the copyright holders That's not how it works.

chaostheory 14y ago
How does it work?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  The other way around, I'm going to assume he meant "get the home addresses of file sharers from their IP addresses"
  - mistercow 14y ago
    No, I did not mean that, because that's not what it does. It pretty clearly monitors p2p networks, finds the IP addresses, and then notifies the ISPs. If you read closely, you'll see that it also passes the IP along to the content owners. In other words, it sounds like this does exactly what they did all along to catch people on BitTorrent. The difference is that instead of hiring various independent companies to do the policing (which ended in a lot of false positives, probably because those companies were trying to turn over as many IPs as possible), they've pooled their resources to create a single streamlined process. Now there are a couple of reasons they would want to downplay the real purpose of this system. First, ISPs aren't going to get on board with a "help us sue your customers" plan. But "help us educate your customers about copyright" is probably appealing to an ISP. And as far as the public is concerned, it's a good bet that some details of this would have gotten leaked if they had tried to just keep it under wraps. Talking about it openly, but downplaying its primary purpose, is an easy way to solve that problem.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Whenever you connect to a P2P system you are advertising your IP address publically, so it requires no conspiracy to get them and certainly no violation of privacy. They want to educate customers about not running open wireless networks etc so they find it more difficult to argue "oh, my wifi was open so it wasn't me".