Slashdot Log In
ISPs to Ban P2P With New European Telecom Package?
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Jul 03, 2008 02:57 AM
from the no-torrents-for-you dept.
from the no-torrents-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation that received a number of 'intellectual property' amendments. Many of these amendments can be found here. Judging by the amendments, ISPs could be mandated to block legitimate traffic in an effort to 'prevent' illegitimate traffic. To help stop this legislation, you can check out the action page. Additional coverage can be found on EDRI and Open Rights Group."
Related Stories
Submission: EU ISPs to ban P2P Via EU Telecom Package? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ISPs to Ban P2P With New European Telecom Package?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 367 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HORDE" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:5, Funny)
And there will probably be at least one guy shouting "LEROY JENKINS!"
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck off! We're the Judean People's Front.
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck off! We're the Front of Judea's People.
Parent
Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (Score:4, Funny)
What has the EU done for us anyway...
Parent
I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that a troll? We have politicians who find nothing wrong with admitting on television that they don't know what a browser is. The internet could be switched off tomorrow for all they care. If they need to send something, there's always fax.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least the copyright holders can sit down and relax for the next 100 years...
Too bad they can't "surf" on the internet, because its shutdown...
No, they'll be able to sit down for about a month, until someone finds a way to circumvent the restrictions and the arms race moves up another notch. As usual, it's the legitimate users who will be left out in the cold by this.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
They can only relax for a few months, because ISPs still need to allow some access through their systems. So all that is needed, is to create ways to translate data into whatever form they do allow, so it gets through their system and then translate it back on the other side. The ISPs are just a barrier/bridge to the Internet, so no matter what new walls they create for data, new ways can be found to get data past their control. (Its not the ideal solution and not the most optimal solution, but unfortunately, as we live in a world where some people are determined to control others, then everyone else has no choice).
Unfortunately a minority of people, seek power over others and they are obsessed with finding new ways to control other people (for their own gain), but what they fail to realize, is their acts of control create a pressure for change away from their control. The power seekers throughout history have tried to create a bias in their favor, but it never lasts.
Parent
Will ISPs want a drop in demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
They've spent years telling people they need bandwidth to download music, etc.
Are they now going to tell us we don't need it any more, that a much cheaper line will suffice?
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Funny)
I really think they are missing the point
Politicians missing the point? I am SHOCKED!
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
UPDATE: Politician are to be banned from speaking in order to prevent their lies from escaping their lips.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Interesting)
The interviewer asked if she meant all kind of sharing, like if he had a document he had written him self on his computer and wanted to share it, would it be illegal? And the great lawmaker answered: "We are talking about files here, not documents and stuff like that."
The point is: They haven't got a clue! The haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. But that doesn't stop them from passing laws...
Parent
No Free Content (Score:5, Informative)
I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet.
No, they see the point perfectly clear. Their view is that people need to stop thinking that they can get free stuff from the internet. The last sentence of this BBC article [bbc.co.uk]sums up the industry's position pretty well:
"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"
Parent
centralise, regulate and control (Score:5, Insightful)
So far the internet has been seen as a necessary evil. Something that has some benefits (outsourcing, e-commerce) and some small disadvantages. Now we have a situation where a large pressure group (the media) want to change the order of things and are using their influence to put a halt to this unregulated area.
Governments like the idea of people paying for things. That way they get to tax them more and also put in place commercial frameworks where it is in the suppliers interests to toe the line. (For some reason they haven't managed this with the drugs trade - yet). It also allows them to regulate the content, by controlling the providers. So far, because of their general cluelessness in technical areas, governments haven't come up with an effective way to do this - while keeping the veneer of freedom/democracy that they like people to think they have. Just as soon as they can come up with a "think of the children" strategy that works, they'll implement it and the internet will become a top-down hierarchy with laws, penalties and controls.
Parent
Re:No Free Content (Score:4, Insightful)
"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"
That quote made me think and I realized that my whole life is based on free consumption of content: radio (streaming/podcast), music, documentaries, tv shows, movies, porn, games.
The web and p2p are by far my main source of entertainment and information, this stuff is what I spend most of my free time on, this is who I am.
Trying to put an end to that is no less than a direct attack on my way of life.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't missing the point at all. The understand the point perfectly and that is why they don't like it.
P2P, especially torrenting, massively decentralises the process of distributing information. For centuries such technology has been held only be a self-selecting elite, who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers for societies discourse, believing they know what is best for us mere plebs to think. People using their bandwidth to help each other broadcast information instead of just downloading it from corporate and government sources scare the EU parliament. They can't be controlled, you see.
It is part of a wider move to reshape society that has been going on for at least a century.
If you imagine society as a tree structure, with the leaders at the top and the citizens at the bottom, and connections between members of society. Some of these are vertical ones that transcend the 'levels' of the tree, and represent the unequal relationships we have with those more powerful than us or less powerful. Some connections are horizontal ones between peers and equals. The method of control that has been preferred by western civilisation is the elimination of horizontal connections in society to make people more dependent on vertical ones.
In terms of the Internet, this is reflected by the constant legislation aimed at eliminating the Internet as a global communication network with a low barrier for entry for those wishing to transmit, and turning it into a mere conduit for delivering products and services of those in power. That is what the Internet has been to these people for the past 15 years - the fact we can use it for our own needs is to them a fault which needs to be corrected.
Rant over. Seems you caught me at a philosophical moment.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't steal data. Its a physically nonsensical concept. The only way I can see actual theft working is if you were to use quantum teleportation to extract the electrons from one persons computer and place them in your own.
Distribution of trash media is part of what helps level the playing field. It means that people used to getting their data through conventional means now get it through the new medium, and thus are looking in the right place to find user generated content.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is they have corrupted our laws,rigged the playing field every chance the got,and screwed both the artists and the customers for every penny they could. While I haven't seen any of their swill I want,if someone else wants it I say more power to them. To me having those thieves complain about being ripped off and having ANYONE think they are being treated unfairly is just sickening. The world will be a much better place when those media cartels are dead and gone. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel that if there had been serious study of how material is created and distributed today, there could have been better solutions. Maybe if there had been a better ways to purchase material online more people would have. But to rigidly maintain an outdated structure benefits no one in the end.
I find myself agreeing with those that call politicans clueless concerning these matters. It is easier for them to listen to lobbyist or just skip this entire issue all together. Meaning that what laws are passes are not in the public interest, but either in the interest of the corporate lobby; or the interest of those within Government that want greater control of the distribution of information. Either way, we lose.
Maybe the future is to focus on creating better wireless devices. If everyone in my city had a wireless devices that were capable of merging into one large network, then I could send information from my computer to someone on the other side of the city (or country) aslong as there was a path and nodes for it to leapfrog across. This probably wouldn't be anything like as efficent as a landline, but done right it could provide a secondary internet of sorts; which would be a lot harder to regulate.
Parent
Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
ISP ESP (Score:4, Funny)
Weird (Score:1, Interesting)
I've always thought that encrypted and suitably tunneled P2P traffic cannot be blocked without blocking the non-P2P traffic whose protocol is used as a channel. Do they want to shut down the Internet?
Re:Weird (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, mandatory Trusted Computing, the magic bullet. Because enumerating and safeguarding against all known good or bad software products has worked sooo well in corporate environments.
Last time I checked, online gaming had a massive problem with cheaters of all sorts, despite a decade's effort to secure their client code and to check against known badware. With no luck.
Good luck trying to keep an updated, effective list of all known intellectual-property-respecting, human-rights-compatible, hate-speech-free and politically-absolutely-correct software products.
Excuse me while I'm off to my hidden stash of guns and ammo, adding loads of paper and several unregistered mechanical typewriters to the loot.
Don't forget: the Soviet Union required the registration of any and all typewriters and printing devices with the authorities. Unregistered possession of such items was a felony and severely punished.
But in Soviet Europe, Trusted Computing registers YOU! Ihre Papiere bitte mein Herr!
Parent
Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what, its a fair cop.
People compare the current actions of the US with the Nazis and on that basis it is far from unreasonable to extend the analogy and compare the EU to Communists.
We do much the same stuff, except instead of invoking national pride and military glory we simply tell you we are doing whats best for you, and you will understand one day, you poor deluded child.
Parent
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, mandatory Trusted Computing, the magic bullet. Because enumerating and safeguarding against all known good or bad software products has worked sooo well in corporate environments.
Apparently, you don't grok how "Trusted Computing" works. It works on a "white list" principal. If any of the software/OS/applications/BIOS/hardware isn't on the white list, then the machine in question will not certify as "trusted" when queried when you attempt to connect to your ISP or any other "trusted" machine, appliance, or service. Any time you attempt to connect, "T.C." authorization servers verify the "trusted" or "not trusted" state of the machine with a hash generated from the machines' hardware/software and the unique keys stored in the silicon against hashes/keys on a "T.C." authorization server.
Currently, the "T.C." chip is a discrete IC on the motherboard. It will soon be integrated directly onto the CPU wafer. There's no "getting to" the keys contained, as they never leave the IC, never resides in RAM or on a data bus. So unless you have advanced, very expensive equipment for reverse-engineering and fabricating microchips at the micron level you're out of luck. Even were someone to succeed, all that trouble and expense would only allow *one* machine to falsify a "trusted" state, and only until it was discovered and its' unique keys revoked at the T.C. authorization servers, all but "bricking" the machine as far as any use in conjunction with the "trusted" network.
I truly believe this will be the next major battle in the arms race between those who wish to control information and people, and those that want freedom, and might very well be the last if they succeed. They've already committed themselves to this path and fired the first shot with the inclusion of the outboard "T.C." chip on many/most(?) motherboards. If they succeed in fully rolling this system out, times will surely get "interesting" indeed, in that bad old Chinese curse kind of way.
Cheers!
Strat
Parent
There are many legal uses for filesharing (Score:5, Interesting)
Jamendo [jamendo.com] uses it to distribute Creative Commons-licensed music, all of it with the explicit permission of its copyright holders.
BitTorrent is crucial to my musical aspirations, as distributing my music [geometricvisions.com] with it allows me to provide formats that would use a lot of bandwidth, such as FLAC, without incurring expensive bandwidth charges.
While musicians can host their music for free at places like MySpace, it's really best to for artists to have their own websites, and to host their own music. That way, growth in the popularity of their sites will enrich the artists, rather than the music hosting service.
But a hit song can bankrupt struggling musicians if they just supply regular HTTP downloads; p2p enables mass distribution at a very low cost.
It's very important to get the message through to lawmakers and the public that filesharing, while it can be abused, is inherently perfectly legitimate, and should be kept both legal and technically possible.
Re:There are many legal uses for filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
BitTorrent is crucial to my musical aspirations, as distributing my music [geometricvisions.com] with it allows me to provide formats that would use a lot of bandwidth, such as FLAC, without incurring expensive bandwidth charges.
While musicians can host their music for free at places like MySpace, it's really best to for artists to have their own websites, and to host their own music. That way, growth in the popularity of their sites will enrich the artists, rather than the music hosting service.
And you think the record companies want that?
Parent
Of course they don't - but we shouldn't let them (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes I'm well aware of the corrupting influence of campaign donations and lobbyists. If those lead to bad laws being passed, it's because the voters don't care about their own rights.
There are definitely more voters than corporations, so it's well-within our abilities to put those who pass bad laws out of a job.
Parent
Re:There are many legal uses for filesharing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's very important to get the message through to lawmakers and the public that filesharing, while it can be abused, is inherently perfectly legitimate, and should be kept both legal and technically possible.
No problem, say, you wouldn't happen to have millions of pounds and a whole bunch of lobbyists/lawyers we could use would you?
That's what it will take.
The media companies see p2p as a deadly threat, so they will just keep hammering on about it, rewording, restating, and lobbying different groups, until they eventually get what they want.
That's how things seem to work in the US (not US bashing here, that's a genuine observation), and the technique is being applied in the EU by the same companies.
Not that the EU is perfect. Not for nothing is it known as the french farmers fan club. Those guys get pretty much anything they want.
Parent
Fixing Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the only people pushing for this type of legislation are large companies and their shareholders. As a regular Joe, I can say I can disagree strongly with this.
Not going to happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it might sound plausible when the RIAA/MPAA paints a picture of P2P = piracy and stack up all the "favorable facts" but there's no way something like that would pass. You don't hear much from other uses because they have no interest in political mudslinging, but they're there. While all the countries of the EU have their own laws, I know at least my own (which isn't part of EU but.. long story) has freedom of speech written into the constitution. Trying to block legitimate speech because it's not approved by the "authorities" would fall so flat on its face in court it'd be an embarrasment to any politician that passed it.
Re:Not going to happen... (Score:5, Informative)
You must be new here. I'd like to welcome you to the wonderful world of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
There's plenty speech that isn't legal as copyright is a restriction on freedom of speech itself (as is libel, slander, fraud, deceptive marketing, threats, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater abd so on), but they all go towards the content of the speech not the means of its transmission. If I record my own political speech, convert it to mp3 and put it up on bittorrent except bittorrent doesn't work because it's been shut down by the state apparatink, do you understand where I'm going with this? There's a reason "freedom of the press" is in the first amendment, look at the old Soviet Union or the current China, when the government can shut down any media they want you're well on the way to fascism.
Parent
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Citizens banned from cities streets in a move to prevent mugging.
No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP market! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. As they will close the P2P protocols, new ones will arise.
3. Investments for heavy throttling will never pay back as people will find new interesting ways to bypass it or to switch to a different ISP!
Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (Score:5, Funny)
And even if it could get to the toothpaste it couldn't even brush its teeth because its tiny arms won't reach its terrible mouth. How the mighty fall - not through asteroid strike or an ice age, but through lack of toothpaste. We have all the toothpaste, here in the future. True, much is gone forever, washed down the plugholes of the past, but the lion's share of the toothpaste is still to come, and we shall spread it far out of the tube, beyond this horizon, beyond the reach of the dinosaurs of the past with their smelly breath and dirty teeth. Yes indeed, my friend - the toothpaste is, indeed, well and truly out of the tube, and the dummies and the desperate can only stand and quiver. Stand and quiver.
Parent
Encryption is the Next step (Score:5, Interesting)
Globally, legislation is being forced through parliaments, to take away our rights. This legislation has come in many forms, but the result of it is that someone wants to access and read your streams of data for whatever reason.
The only way to render this closer to impossible is to stop them being able to read your private correspondence with a web information service provider. The cost for this privacy - faster servers - will be a small price to pay.
Decrypting private data is generally regarded as a serious offence in most countries, and while, only the USA security organisations have access to Verisign's root servers, they will not admit this in public, because it would take away their advantage.
That's it, I'm fed up with this BS (Score:1)
They don't get abundance (Score:5, Interesting)
All our models for running a society and an economy use scarcity as a starting point; there is more demand for something than supply, and thus there must be a strong rule of law to make sure the resource is distributed properly (although I think its fair to say plenty of people disagree on the definition of 'properly')
Data is not scare though. In a P2P network, every person who demands also by definition supplies, thus demand can never outstrip supply.
They will lose this battle for mathematical rather than political reasons (the level of control they desire is impossible, and if they understood the technology they would know that) - but it interests me as a foreshadowing of a possible future.
Our society could well die from a resources shortage, but we might be able to save ourselves. Three technologies currently being researched, controlled nuclear fusion, autonomous robots, and universal fabrication, could conceivably bring the abundance we see in data to the majority of physical products and services. I listed them in order of the maturity of each field, but I believe that in my lifetime (I am 27 for reference) we could see them all reach a point where want can be effectively eliminated.
Of course, there are some people, the same people we are complaining about now, who don't want to see that. Desperate people are controllable people.
The nice thing about music and movies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The nice thing about music and movies (Score:5, Funny)
I may even get more work done.
Now if only somebody could ban the Slashdot as well.
Parent
Additionally use of open source not compatible (Score:3, Insightful)
this worries me the most :
"Free Software is not compatible with standards used to try to restrict the run of a  lawful application  : Free Software can be studied and modified by the user himself to check the security of the software or to create a new lawful application as Free Soffware authors grant the right to do so to every user. And technologies used to check if an application is lawful consider user modified software as unlawful. So beside pushing dangerous technologies for privacy, this amendment mays create by itself a barrier in the internal market even if an ISO standard of treacherous computing emerges like the following (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50970)."
utterly clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
let's go out on a limb, and say the "internet police" can do this (as it is incredibly daunting): we are going to go out and define every node of the internet as "client" and "server". that's a leap of faith, and resources, but lets just go and say that someone can do this
the "client" can only consume, and never serve traffic. ok. so you can never make a form request. you can never upload a youtube video. you can never send an email. you can't chat
oh, ok, ok, you can serve some things... certain ports, certain packet headers are ok... we'll just filter out any unauthorized served content
wtf?
so let's make a second huge leap and say the "internet police" can (with whatever magical resources) identify all nodes as client/ server AND police all traffic formats as allowed/ not allowed. and these are two huge suspensions of disbelief, that anyone can have the willpower and the mandate and the resources to do these two things
now you STILL have issues like:
1. obfuscation. why can't i encrypt my copy of "iron man" as a bunch of supposed form requests. i can't label p2p traffic with a bogus packet header? i can't encrypt it? i can't send it down an "authorized" port?
2. gateways. rogue servers that merely reflect data to another client. perhaps taken over. perhaps just tricked into using "allowed" modes of communication to communicate "iron man"
3. spoofing. trick the watchdogs into thinking p2p traffic is actually legit server to client traffic (ip spoofing but one example, there are a dozen more spoofs)
4. etc., etc. smarter people than me can think up a myriad more ways
it's a game of whack-a-mole. it's a pointless, endless, arms race: every technical effort to kill p2p merely results in the creation of hardier versions of p2p. furthermore, on one side you have a bunch of disorganized, passively interested, technically astute, and most importantly, POOR teenagers. millions of them. on the other side, you have a bunch of expensive hired guns, funded by a pool of money that is, get this, being siphoned off by the unorganized teenager's efforts. take a wild guess where i place my bet on who is going to win this contest
morons: the ONLY way to kill p2p is to pervert the nature of the internet to the point that anything compelling and useful about the internet is not also destroyed. if the information flow is not also free, and only one way, you stifle the creation of new services, and bureaucratically choke any existing useful ones. the internet becomes stagnant, passive, just a form television delivered over tcp/ip. the internet is killed
so how about another option for you: p2p isn't going away, and fucking get used to it! reality accept it, don't fight it, you stupid twits
Pirate WiFi? (Score:2, Insightful)
This shit is going to escalate until it's too late. Telcos make money anyway through landline and cellphones rates, cable TV and stuff, so I wouldn't expect them to fear losing customers. People should consider getting the necessary equipment to set up a pirate radio station like they did in the 60s and 70s, but this time by using common Wi-Fi equipment. I wish every home recycled an old PC with wireless card setting up a minimum file server, a dynamic routing daemon (OLSR, b.a.t.m.a.n., etc) and a p2p client.
Please object in writing to your MEP (Score:2, Insightful)
The common comment theme (Score:4, Interesting)
The common theme within some of the comments here seems to be "let's build an open network". Although this is somewhat idealistic, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Cities are already smothered with open wireless networks, whether intentionally or not, and there's no way you can regulate the traffic among them. And P2P, although used on the "International Network", is essentially a local service... a closed group of people, usually from countries that speak the same language, sharing files with each other internally without a *requirement* for international transit.
P2P moving to such networks is an obvious possibility. Again, by heavy-handed and back-handed approaches (suing people without evidence, slipping clauses/laws into other laws by political maneouvering, etc.), the media industries are forcing people to use more and more ingenious solutions to sensibly meet their requirements (i.e. they'd like some sensibly-priced music that they can use, please). And as each solution's flaws are found, new solutions (without those flaws) present themselves. Regulation of traffic flowing over regulated internet channels? Remove the regulation by using *other* channels.
We seem to have come full circle - from the initial Internet, where private, unregulated networks joined up to decrease costs and increase connectivity, to a world where everyone has their own private network behind an ISP's public network, to (hopefully) a place where all the private networks peer with each other *without the intervention of an ISP*, except this time via radios. The only problem is international transit (Joe Bloggs can't exactly run a fibre over the English Channel), but the chances are that programs like Tor, etc. as well as the odd rogue network that connects to someone's actual ISP connection will solve that.
Maybe when 802.11n or its successor grows in popularity, we will see home networks that, even with enormous interference, crowded channels, limited range, primitive routing etc. are quite capable of peering with a number of geographical neighbours and passing traffic intelligently at a reasonable speed. You don't even have to take account of "ISP T&C's" because you don't NEED to pass the traffic to the Internet at every possible point, only to be able to pass it on to someone else.
I had a quick look and all of the community wifi projects I can find in my country are very small and localised, or don't exist any more. If there was one operating near me, I'd gladly hook up an old Linksys and an enormous antenna and let it freely pass traffic - everything would have to be encrypted, anyway, because an open network is an open network but if all it needs is to be "plugged in", and not actually connected to anything else physically, or to the Internet, there's no reason we can't each have a little cube in our homes that costs about £10 and lets us connect to every house in the street and pass traffic. If there was the possibility of such a "darknet" running over it (free VoIP calls, free music, free movies, no Internet charges, etc.) I'm sure every student would have one.
Then, not only do the music industry etc. run into the problem of *detecting* the traffic in the first place (no black boxes on a private net, a physical presence required in every locality, and being able to defeat the encryption), but that if done properly, traffic's transit route, origin, etc. are impossible to determine. They may try to close the system down, of course, but then you have a much larger problem - you're effectively trying to shut down the entire Internet. Except all the "nodes" are private individuals, without contracts, without liability, without regulation, and, if they are cheap enough, rogue solar-powered blackboxes stuck in hidden locations around towns and cities and replaced whenever they are discovered. Just how do you shut that down without bringing a country into riots?
The real Internet2 isn't going to be an academic project aimed at pushing Gb/s over international fibre, it's going to be a nationwide collection of cheap Gumstix with a solar panel and wifi, sold at cost price, one per home, that let's people escape most of the communication regulation foisted upon them.
I RTFA so you don't have to (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but the legislation as proposed accounts for that. It suggests that countries would have to make it a legal requirement that terminals allowed to connect to the Internet had the technical means to ensure that they don't do anything illegal.
In other words, it legislates for mandatory Trusted Computing (the infamous "Palladium" chip).
I read the extracts of the proposed amendments too (Score:4, Informative)
My reading of the proposed amendment is the exact opposite - (my emphasis added):
It seems to me that this directive prohibits making it a legal requirement that equipment contains DRM or other control mechanisms. Manufacturers can put that stuff in their products if they want but it seems to me that this amendment says you can't stop manufacturers leaving it out and if they do you can't stop them shipping their products between member states.
I know it is probably too much to ask on Slashdot but could someone else read the proposed amendments carefully, think about them and if they think I have got it wrong explain exactly how and why they interpret the words in that way.
Parent
Re:I read the extracts of the proposed amendments (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it is probably too much to ask on Slashdot but could someone else read the proposed amendments carefully, think about them and if they think I have got it wrong explain exactly how and why they interpret the words in that way.
This is something I was unclear about. The paragraph immediately below that directly contradicted it - whether or not those amendments are proposed or they've been written into the legislation I don't know.
One thing I would point out - legislated TPM or not, if every ISP in the country is legally obliged to do everything in their power to prevent customer copyright infringement and TPM offers this promise, how long before the ISP makes "you must have a TPM-enabled PC" a condition of service, at least for domestic connections?
Parent
14'000 euro per month for the EMP (Score:1)
The system works!
The disturbing thing (Score:1)
Well why not? (Score:2)
For years ISP's have been delivering content to me while ratting me out to the authorities and while I pay them to do that. Now THEY have some skin in the game. Sue me, sue them, sue everyone.
Better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffers (Score:2)
Right? Right.
What about a 100 guilty? A 1000? Does it stop anywhere?.. Are we willing to risk 1 innocent over any number of the guilty?
Shutdown! (Score:1)
If they show that they have the power the governemts will have to back down. I would support them 100% dispite the annoyance that it would cause me..
Meanwhile in Brazl.. (Score:3, Interesting)
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
a national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements
. Nothing strange about it, it might even allow regulatory agencies to mandate ISPs to advertise more truthfully.
if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of services and slowing of traffic over networks,
Traffic shaping is not necessarily bad. Why should I have to wait 5+ seconds for a webpage to load just because the guy next door is downloading 24/7?
and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted.
This is where there can be disagreement on what this amendment is trying to accomplish. On the one hand, it might be used to restrict P2P sharing. This is La Quadrature's interpretation. On the other hand, however, this passage can also be construed as protecting our right to use our internet connection as we see fit, provided we are not engaging in illegal activities. For instance, should ISPs block or throttle all P2P traffic, a user might file a complaint with the regulatory authorities, which could judge that, since it unreasonably restricts the ability of users to access lawful content, such a measure is illegal.
Their analysis of Article 21 (4a) is not much more accurate. What is says is that, "when appropriate", ISPs may be forced to send "public interest information" to subscribers. The inclusions of
(c) means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data in using electronic communications services
argues against La Quadrature's (confused and barely understandable) analysis that this article refers to mandatory takedown notices. A more charitable -- and plain -- reading suggests that ISPs would be required to send a brochure to their customers to tell them that copyright infrigement in really bad. This is why both existing and new subscribers (who, obviously, haven't downloaded anything illegal yet), are mentioned. In all likelihood, the only thing this amendment will accomplish is that all subscribers will get a leaflet that explains why they should install a firewall and an anti-virus program.
It's FUD, pure and simple. Most of the arguments on La Quadrature's pages are either non sequiturs or slippery slope arguments ("may" does not equal "shall").
One question... (Score:3, Insightful)
When ISPs block P2P only ISPs will have P2P!! (Score:1)
Or something like that.
We need to fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
Write whichever politician represents you and say that you do NOT want them to support the efforts by the copyright cartels to shut down legitimate content distribution in the name of fighting piracy. Tell them that you do NOT support piracy and the illegal copying of other peoples content without permission but that the law and court system should be used to find the people who violate copyright law and that ISPs should NOT be force to block
Tell them that if they support legislation that blocks legitimate uses of the internet in the name of fighting piracy, you will vote for someone else who does not support such legislation.
Who the hell do they think they are? (Score:2)
Start downloading!! (Score:1)
BBC iPlayer? (Score:1)
I can't see UK government, ridiculously inept as they are, shutting down the iPlayer. Why? Because they use it as an excuse to charge you for a TV license when you've only got a computer.
And if there's one thing the UK government like, it's badly disguised taxes.
Useless EU (Score:3, Insightful)
EU = EUSSR
I have a brilliant idea! (Score:2)
Just convert P2P traffic into Spam, and hijack the same IP addresses where it is being sent from. Every upload would be a reply-to an advertisement to "grow this" and "shrink that."
Because, apparently, this SPAM doesn't seem to have any priority for the Internet police because it hurts consumers, so if P2P networks could look like trojans, viruses, advertisements and late fee notices, it would be completely legitimate.
Just change that video name to "You will be amazed in just 15 days" and there is no possibility that anyone will be staying awake to view it.
Of course, then you would have another server that explained what all the spam headers were pointing to, but you could always claim; "Hey, I was just responding to get a free Vacation -- it's my right to spend $3000 on a FREE vacation with an undisclosed third-party isn't it?"
Implement P2P over POP/SMTP (Score:1)
That would screw with them - just try blocking email.
Source / Official Link? (Score:1)
I can't find any 'official' (ie. published on an EU Parliamentary site) version of this proposal. That said I'm no expert in traversing the EU official sites.
Does somebody have a real link to the actual source? I am starting to suspect that this is hot air...
Re:I am sure this is newsworthy (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent
Re:how far off (Score:1)
I'm already starting to do that. In a slightly different way.
All the radio stations here have nothing but corporate fascist media owned content, So I stream, a progressive station 24/7 across FM wireless, although it doesn't cover very far, it's enough that several homes in all directions can receive the station.
The same thing could apply to communications.
Convert your CB's and HAM equipment, etc.
Parent
Re:Everything's Backwards Here (NOT TROLL) (Score:1)
I bet you like abusing your mod points. I bet your one of the US Cyber-warfare fucks.
Parent
Re:So, how long? / torrent relays? (Score:1)
You ain't no troll, they're fucking me too! just above you...
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:2, Funny)
You're a silly sausage.
Glad you agree.
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:1)
Perhaps media companies should engineer a retrovirus which introduces blindness into the collective human genome. That way there's less chance of someone viewing 'illegal content'.
Ho ho ho - I cannot wait until these greedy corporate motherfuckers take it in the ass when the revolution comes (more "ho ho ho"'ing trailing off insanely....)
Parent
Re:So, how long? / torrent relays? (Score:2)
Labelled a troll?
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?
This is not only not a troll, it is on-topic, twice!
Either someone failed at reading, or someone is abusing the mod-points system.
In recent years, they have been handing out more mod points at a time to individual users.
Additionally, I've noticed several comments which were worded "a little too professionally" (I don't mean intelligently, i mean passing off rubbish with carefully crafted sophistry and fallacy) by people with user id's higher than mine, followed by numerous approvals by people with equally high user id's.
Since 2k3 i've noticed a considerable corporate-shift as well.
What all this basically translates into is: This news site has massive traffic, and has attracted astro-turfers in droves.
Our illustrious leaders would be doing us well by limiting mod-points to 7 per person to help prevent astro-turfing groups from keeping stocks on hand.
Parent
Re:bla (Score:2)
Wait. You mean content creators somehow expect or desire that their creations at some point be seen, heard, felt, touched, or Be otherwise exchanged to others? Inconceivable! A Moment of Silence, if you Please, while I Gather the Operation Rousseau Society Will Thoughts of My Pets, er Peers.
Parent