

Sony Reveals an Even Bigger Attack on the Internet – the MPAA Is Behind It - philip1209
http://blog.opendns.com/2014/12/30/sony-reveals-even-bigger-attack-internet-time-mpaa-behind/

======
anigbrowl
_While it’s incredible that a lawyer like Fabrizio would be so bold (and
foolish) to use such language in discoverable emails, what he is proposing is
even more incredible. A deliberate attempt to circumvent the DMCA. Ironic,
right?_

It's not incredible at all. He has an alternative legal theory that he thinks
might stand up in court and lead to issuance of a court order. That's exactly
the job a lawyer is paid to do - come up with legal strategy that advance the
interests of clients, including employers.

I don't know whether this legal theory would prevail and I hope it doesn't,
but going to court and asking for what they want _is_ the appropriate way to
go about things.

 _the MPAA should be finding ways to reduce piracy by enabling access to
content via methods that reward creators._

But people torrent things anyway, even when they are instantly available. I
mentioned to someone the other day that _The Master_ (a film that did rather
poorly at the box office in 2012 but has maintained a good level of audience
interest over the longer term, like many art films) has been available on
Netflix streaming since July and is also available on other services like
Amazon Instant Video, but you can see 25-30k people torrenting it on popular
trackers. You can always invent another excuse for why it's more convenient to
Torrent something than pay the paltry $8 or $10/month for Netflix, ie the cost
of a few cups of coffee or about an hour's wages in a low-paying job. This
method rewards creators and is clearly affordable.

Without endorsing the MPAA, how much more should they be doing in this case?
Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film,
exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your
mind?

~~~
innguest
> Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film,
> exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your
> mind?

Alright, let's brainstorm.

How about movie companies put up several movie ideas, we vote on which ones we
want to watch by paying ahead so they can produce it, much like a kickstarter
project, and then once it's done it's already paid for and they can release it
for free online?

Oh that's right, it wouldn't work because there's no litigation involved and
so it's no fun!

(What I'm trying to say is they're not interested in solving this problem,
even though several solutions exist, despite sibling comments here saying that
no solution exists).

~~~
innguest
Please downvote the solution above as it incentivizes transparency, public
scrutiny and more choice, while creating a more targeted product with
guaranteed success (since it's been paid for and returned profits in advance
of its making).

Please go on with your other solutions involving more lawyers and copyright
protection schemes. I didn't mean to distract you.

~~~
CamperBob2
You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.)

Also, the moderation is extremely weird in this particular HN story. I
wouldn't take it personally.

~~~
mingmecca
_You can 't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.)_

I'm curious as to why you think that? There are a lot of really great projects
on Kickstarter that would fall under the umbrella of "good art" (games, films,
etc). Unless you're speaking subjectively, of course, and you don't like what
is on offer.

~~~
anigbrowl
If you look at film video projects on Kickstarter, it's mostly documentaries -
for which this model works OK because documentaries are often about something
that has an interest group already attached, as well as much lower production
costs and quality expectations - short films, which are raising small amounts
and generally just using Kickstarter to funnel donations from friends &
family, or instructionals, which aim to produce educational content. It's not
at all good for feature films. There are some crowdfunding sites that are a
bit better but the more friendly they are to features the more likely they are
to be targeted within the industry. I laid out some reasons in another post
above, I should have mentioned that those are all narrative feature-specific
things.

------
MarcScott
"DNS is a fundamental protocol of the Internet — as fundamental as the
physical wiring itself"

This was why I was so annoyed by the MPAA's ability to impose DNS filtering in
the UK. See here -
[http://www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk](http://www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk)

Of course, it is not difficult to circumvent by using alternate DNS providers
other than your ISP's, but the vast majority of people wouldn't know where to
start on this.

What I find worrisome is not the blocking of torrent sites, but that a
precedent has been set in the UK, and we'll inevitably start our headlong
slide down the slippery slope towards censorship of anything corporations or
the government find objectionable.

~~~
caractacus
They haven't imposed DNS filtering - or at least, as implemented by almost all
UK ISPs, the DNS lookup performs as normal.

The user looks up the IP address of the site they want to visit via a DNS
lookup and is provided with the correct IP addres. However, if it's for
kickass.so (on the blocklist), the ISP detects traffic to the IP of that site
as it attempts to pass out of the ISP's network and blocks it.

Also, most of the work to get sites blocked via court order in the UK (not by
some secret lobbying deal, but through the courts) has been done by the music
industry, not the MPAA.

~~~
M2Ys4U
>They haven't imposed DNS filtering - or at least, as implemented by almost
all UK ISPs, the DNS lookup performs as normal.

>The user looks up the IP address of the site they want to visit via a DNS
lookup and is provided with the correct IP addres. However, if it's for
kickass.so (on the blocklist), the ISP detects traffic to the IP of that site
as it attempts to pass out of the ISP's network and blocks it.

Different ISPs use different systems to implement the blocks. Some use DNS,
some use IP addresses, some do a combination of both. This was all discussed
by a judge in one of the court cases.

>Also, most of the work to get sites blocked via court order in the UK (not by
some secret lobbying deal, but through the courts) has been done by the music
industry, not the MPAA.

Through the courts, yes, but this is a mere formality. The ISPs put up a token
defence and then promptly capitulated.

Even then, they already had the systems in place for this censorship precisely
due to secret lobbying deals and strong-arming by the government (who knew
that any legislation they brought forward would quickly run up against lots of
opposition both politically and legally) - see the situation with the IWF and
the porn-blocking stuff.

There's a reason an IFPI spokesperson said "child porn is great!" at an
industry conference. Censoring it on the wire (as opposed to taking it down at
source and hauling offenders off to jail where they belong) is the thin end of
the wedge and the copyright industry has a huge hammer they want to use to
censor other things.

~~~
caractacus
> Even then, they already had the systems in place for this censorship
> precisely due to secret lobbying deals and strong-arming by the government
> (who knew that any legislation they brought forward would quickly run up
> against lots of opposition both politically and legally) - see the situation
> with the IWF and the porn-blocking stuff.

This isn't right. The Digital Economy Act said 'Ofcom can go think about
whether site blocking would work'. Ofcom took forever and ever and still
hasn't reported back. In the meantime, the music industry took action under
the existing copyright act (from 1997) to try and block some sites. The ISPs
opposed the action. The court granted it. After a few of these, the government
said 'great! you don't need the DEA to block sites then so we'll abandon
that'. There was no secret lobbying to get sites blocked - the legislation was
already there and in place.

------
sarciszewski
DNS is insecure. We know this, and we work around it (hence, TLS). We don't
like this, but the implementations to secure DNS (DANE, etc.) leave a bad
taste in security experts' mouths.

Attacking DNS with legal pressure isn't something the security industry
doesn't already consider. DNS censorship is on of the motivations for using
Tor, VPNs, etc.

This is a legal and political conflict, not a technical one.

~~~
wyager
>We don't like this, but the implementations to secure DNS (DANE, etc.)

DANE is just another half-assed semi-solution that shifts the trust problem
around a bit.

A really good solution requires huge infrastructure change. The _only_
currently viable solution to Zooko's Triangle is Namecoin (or a similar
technology).

It is not possible to forcibly change a Namecoin entry via legal channels.

~~~
roywiggins
Can't you just order the owner of the namecoin entry to transfer it? You can't
seize it, but you can seize the -owner-, if you can find them.

If I have control of "microsoft.bit" I assume Microsoft would be within their
rights to sue me for trademark infringement. This is better than the FBI's
(apparently legal?) ability to seize .com domains en masse, but still.

~~~
wyager
Of course. There's no defense against "rubber hose cryptanalysis".

However, it's trivial to hide ownership of namecoin domains, or to share
ownership among geographically disparate parties.

------
mark_l_watson
Setting aside this lawyer's idea of a new legal strategy, I have a slightly
off topic comment: I am getting tired of hearing people talk at parties, etc.
about grabbing/stealing stuff via bit torrents.

While I don't like the MPAA and the clout that they have, it also works the
other way: people stealing media are also screwing over those of us who are
willing to pay for Netflix streaming, etc.

I think that people who steal media content turn a blind eye to the harm they
cause other Internet users. This is selfish behavior that is spilling over
into bad political actions and government policy.

------
sighsigh
Half-hearted attempt by the collapsing mass media machine to conflate shitty
attempts at DNS filtering as the next SOPA in the hopes the "angry poli-tech"
types will run with it to drown out the fact that a darling entertainment exec
and devote Democrat is actually racist.

[http://data.influenceexplorer.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV...](http://data.influenceexplorer.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZnQ9U2NvdHQlMjBSdWRpbg==)

But Firefox CEO can lose his job because he donated to a Republican once.
That's cool.

