[info] [silk] ... and the usual suspects

[Eugen Leitl]

----- Forwarded message from "B.L. Krieger" <blk20 at cam.ac.uk> -----

From: "B.L. Krieger" <blk20 at cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:01:48 +0000
To: silklist at lists.hserus.net
Subject: [silk] ... and the usual suspects
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
Reply-To: silklist at lists.hserus.net

maybe the egyptian government will lobby for the installation of cameras 
on commercial aircrafts to make sure no copy pyramids are build.

-b

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071209-ifpis-european-christmas-list-content-filtering-and-p2p-blocking.html


Imagine a world in which a single industry could control an entire 
continent's access to particular web sites, force ISPs to install 
expensive deep packet inspection gear that would search the complete 
Internet data streams of millions of users, and force Internet 
applications to conform to its design parameters or risk being blocked. 
If you're a European consumer, this might sound like a paranoid 
dystopia, but it's actually a vision of paradise—if paradise were 
designed by the IFPI.

In a recent memo to European legislators, the worldwide music lobby laid 
out its vision of a world in which all ISPs adopted three "feasible and 
reasonable options" to help address copyright infringement on their 
networks.

It's a familiar troika: content filtering of audio files using 
fingerprinting technology, protocol blocking of "specific P2P services 
that are known to be predominately infringing," and blocking access to 
specific web sites such as AllOfMP3 (as in Denmark) and The Pirate Bay. 
The plan is neither "burdensome or expensive," says IFPI, and it doesn't 
cause any problems for "regular service." Sadly (and shockingly!), ISPs 
in question haven't warmed to the plan voluntarily. As IFPI so 
delicately puts it, "This cooperation has not been sufficiently 
forthcoming from ISPs in Europe so far."

The EFF, which posted a copy of the memo (PDF), is worried that the 
proposal could well gain favorable attention from European lawmakers who 
are currently considering a bill that calls on "Internet service 
providers to apply filtering measures to prevent copyright 
infringements." The group sent a letter of its own (PDF) to the European 
Parliament, pointing out that making the IFPI's wishlist into law could 
have some drawbacks.

Much like the music industry list, the EFF's objections are 
unsurprising. Automated filtering solutions could negatively impact 
education and research, harm European innovation, and weaken privacy 
protections by setting up deep packet inspection gear in every European 
ISP. In addition, the filtering would have little effect on copyright 
infringement because file-swappers would simply encrypt their 
communications. And don't forget mashups! What would happen to our mashups?

But many legislators don't care about mashups. Fortunatetly, the EFF has 
another argument likely to carry some sway in Europe: the shadow of 
totalitarian spy services. This sort of powerful, intrusive filtering, 
set loose across most of Europe, also has huge potential for abuse. "Any 
country that has a centralized system in place to pry into all its 
citizen's private communications," says the EFF's Danny O'Brien, "and 
then preemptively sever those which it deems 'unsuitable,' creates both 
a very disturbing precedent, and a dangerously powerful tool vulnerable 
to misuse."

With or without new legislation, though, it looks like the EU is about 
to get new criminal (not just civil) penalties for certain kinds of 
copyright infringement. The European Parliament passed the controversial 
IPRED2 legislation back in April, but owing to legal uncertainties 
surrounding the failed European constitution, it hasn't been clear that 
the EU has the authority to create new criminal law like this.

According to EFF Europe's "Copycrime" web campaign against the bill, 
this issue was settled in late November after a ruling from the European 
Court of Justice. That ruling said that the EU can enact criminal law 
but cannot control the penalties that each state imposes. IPRED2 could 
well be adopted, though the specific penalties it prescribes for 
copyright violations would be out.

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE