backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 82 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Nov 28 at 5:17 AM

AT&T claims anti-piracy technology could improve network speeds for users

Piracy is a big issue for movie studios and music companies -- copyright infringement suits seem to be filed daily against one company or another. Some companies are trying to cut down on piracy, which is rampant due to the ease with which films and music can be copied and sent on the Internet.

In February of this year, Google was accused of helping pirates distribute stolen intellectual works by film studios. Shortly after the accusations against Google started to fly, Viacom filed a whopping $1 billion USD lawsuit against Google for distributing unauthorized movie and video clips via Google’s YouTube video service.

Google responded to the Viacom suit by saying it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copy Right Act. Google denied any wrongdoing and claimed in May of 2007 that the Viacom suit threatened the way of Internet life. Shortly after making that statement, YouTube announced it would be checking for illegal videos using digital fingerprints in an effort to curb piracy via its video service.

AT&T announced recently that it was taking anti-piracy a step further than YouTube by instituting anti-piracy measures at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. BusinessWeek is reporting that AT&T is considering using technology from a small company called Vobile to prevent users of its network from distributing or even viewing copyrighted works illegally.

The system could also force users to watch works from studios in a sanctioned way where the studios could capture revenue from the viewing. BusinessWeek says that AT&T is trying to create a type of “no piracy zone” where big content creators could digitally release works without having to fear revenue loss from piracy.

AT&T’s plan has raised the ire of privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the EFF says, “They better be very careful. This is serious, serious stuff, to basically invade the privacy of all of your subscribers.” AT&T has invested money in Vobile technology, but says that doesn’t mean it has selected or endorsed Vobile’s technology.

AT&T claims that the move isn’t meant to invade privacy, but rather to cut down on network traffic. AT&T CEO Randall Stevenson told BusinessWeek, “We're doing a lot of work in this area. If you look at what's driving massive amounts of traffic on our network, a lot of it is illegal content." AT&T maintains that reducing piracy will reduce the load on its network and possibly increase network speeds for all users.

Vobile uses what’s described as video DNA, which are strings of bits extracted from clips of movies and shows by Vobile's technology. These video DNA strings would then be compared to content being sent across the network by users and look for matches. When matches are found, the content would be blocked.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Blarg
By KaiserSotze on 11/20/2007 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 5
We are NOT China. This is the USA. Why are we even talking about content filtering the internet.

First they filter "supposed" illegal content. Who says its illegal? What happened to the burden of proof? What happened to net neutrality? What happend to basic freedom of speech? etc.

This system is just another step in the path of censorship and revoking basic rights. Call it content protection, call it DRM. I call it B******t.




RE: Blarg
By mdogs444 on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blarg
By KaiserSotze on 11/20/2007 10:54:26 AM , Rating: 5
Yea but quoting a book and making a statement about it could be concieved as an infringement by this filtering software and thus prevent you from viewing it...which becomes a blocking of you making your opinion about something. Hense the freedom of speech link.


RE: Blarg
By OrSin on 11/20/2007 11:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
ATT need to be very carefully even trying to block content. The minute they do block anything they become responsible for all contect. They will be many people list for allow content to pass. Best to just stay out of it.


RE: Blarg
By joust on 11/26/2007 12:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Once this technology is in place, what's to stop AT&T from blocking content that's damaging to AT&T? What's to stop companies from paying AT&T to block negative publicity? What's to stop AT&T from extorting companies for cash in order to be seen? What's to stop the government from asking AT&T to filter certain content? Or block opposition messages?

I think all these concerns regarding copyright are misguided. This isn't about copyright. This is about control.

They want to be the gatekeepers of our eyes and ears. Control lots of information, you become wildly powerful and wealthy. Control enough information, you control the world.


RE: Blarg
By mdogs444 on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blarg
By KaiserSotze on 11/20/2007 1:08:17 PM , Rating: 3
Take a movie review then. YOu show some of the movie with your audio reviewing it. Or reverse. These finger print algorithms could view it as an infringment also.

As for companies being allowed to censor what we say etc... I seem to recall a couple of companies called Yahoo and Cisco getting into some heat about their foreign dealings with reguards to this area. The debate is that they are based on US Soil so they should follow US rules.

The whole thing was that this is the process of leading to those restrictions. You start with one control it then leads to another, and another and another. The very essence is at risk.

Besides... with the current system; I post a clip of a movie. I then talk about it. I give credit to the owner. I would still get a DMCA Voilation Notice. The way these guys want it, you can't refer to anything without giving them some $$$.

The system is very broken.


RE: Blarg
By just4U on 11/28/2007 5:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
The system is very broken.

That is the best way to describe all of it in regards to this topic. Until regulations come into play that protect everyone (that includes all of us to and not just some big company) it's going to stay broken.

I think, concessions are going to have to be made by the companies pushing for all this. They want their cake and they want to eat it to but ... in order to fully get their way they have to step on some of our net liberties and ease of use that many are getting very accustomed to... and not likely willing to give it up very easily either. So were a ways from seeing something reasonable come into play.

Its a new game, time to make up new rules that make sense for all and don't just serve one side. But for now we just keep reading more of these stupid plans.


RE: Blarg
By Spuke on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blarg
By Christopher1 on 11/20/2007 5:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
Only if it is the WHOLE book.... if it just a part of the book in question that you are posting, as a sample of the book in question to get a person to read it..... not infringement in the least.


RE: Blarg
By Screwballl on 11/20/2007 10:49:13 AM , Rating: 3
this is where they can block all torrent traffic because it is used by illegal file sharing... and they can block napster traffic because it is too similar to the illegal napster traffic... and they can block stuff like Vuze and Joost because it also carries "file-sharing-like" traffic.
All in the name of saving bandwidth for their "legal" users.

No thanks as soon as I find out my ISP starts this crap I am off to another company.


RE: Blarg
By murphyslabrat on 11/20/2007 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Also, games like Gunz that attempt to lever the torrent system for increased efficiency get majorly screwed.


RE: Blarg
By qwertyz on 11/20/2007 11:05:52 AM , Rating: 3
If they try to fuck u JUST FUCK THEM BACK


RE: Blarg
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2007 2:18:19 PM , Rating: 4
What guarantee do we have that their lawyers are women? I don't play on both sides of the fence....

And no fat chicks.


RE: Blarg
By 05SilverGT on 11/20/2007 3:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Calm down Denny Crane!


RE: Blarg
By FITCamaro on 11/21/2007 6:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Nice! I didn't even think of that angle. I love Boston Legal.


RE: Blarg
By Spivonious on 11/20/2007 11:12:32 AM , Rating: 4
Freedom of speech does not apply to services offered by a private (non tax-supported) company. AT&T can do whatever they want to. They can block all traffic except that going to att.com. The beauty of a free market is that if they ever did something like this they would die a quick death.

When the government starts censoring things, then you have a true freedom of speech violation.


RE: Blarg
By kextyn on 11/20/2007 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 5
This doesn't have anything to do with free speech really. And ATT can block access to whatever they want, but it's not as easy as you may think.

"ISPs in many countries, including the United States, enjoy a legal status often known as “Common Carrier.” Simply put, this absolves the ISP of responsibility if it assists in the transfer of illegal materials, such as copyrighted works or child pornography. The philosophy is that as long as the ISP simply moves data from one place to another — not making any judgment or discrimination about whether to move one type of data or another — the ISP should enjoy a “safe harbor.”"

By blocking what they consider to be illegal content if there is still anything illegal going over the pipes they can be held accountable for it.


RE: Blarg
By Spuke on 11/20/2007 5:00:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
By blocking what they consider to be illegal content if there is still anything illegal going over the pipes they can be held accountable for it.
This is what gets them in trouble. Thanks. I was trying to think of this.