Scholarly paper on the ineffectiveness of using ISPs to police copyright

Andrew A. Adams (University of Reading) and Ian Brown (Oxford Internet Institute) have just released a new paper on the risks that we face now that the entertainment industry wants to augment DRM with ISP surveillance and termination of accused infringers. They argue that all the evils that arose from ineffective DRM will be magnified by ineffective ISP termination, that the music and film industries will be no richer, and that the public will be at much greater risk of censorship and unfair disconnection from their education, work, health information, families, free speech, and civic engagement via the Internet.

1. It would be trivial for the authors of filesharing software to enable the encryption of traffic flowing between peer‐to‐peer clients. This would make it much more difficult for ISPs to identify the transmission of copyrighted works, even if they undertook highly resource‐intensive and invasive traffic analysis of customer data flows. Use of network‐level encryption protocols such as IPSEC would make it difficult to block specific peer‐to‐protocols. Such protocols can also be masked to avoid restrictions.

2. The US government spent 25 years trying to prevent the widespread availability of encryption software, and failed spectacularly.20 Even after the horrific events of 11 September 2001, it made no serious attempt to reopen that battle. Cryptographic protection is now the foundation of Internet security. It is almost inconceivable that governments would attempt to ban it a second time.

3. “Well‐known” sites that contain infringing content and hence might be blocked by ISPS are easily duplicated at less well‐known sites – at a speed that would likely outpace the ability of right holders to keep up. Much peer‐to‐peer software is already designed to avoid a dependence upon access to particular servers, following the shutdown of the first‐ generation Napster’s indexing servers.

4. As with TPMs , data monitoring software run by ISPs is not in a position to understand the context and hence legality of the transmission of a given work.

5. The widespread availability of multi‐gigabyte hard disks and USB data sticks is making it ever‐easier for users to exchange entire music collections face‐to‐face. The heaviest restrictions on Internet service would have little impact on this “sneakernet”.

Keep Looking: The Answer to the Machine is Elsewhere (Thanks, Ian!)

• [Ugly Canuck]

  The future holds much much faster and much much larger data flow and retention/memory.
  These copy-not guys are slowing up the train.

• [querent]

  @#9

  Great point. No one is made less. It’s not like I would have bought it, but didn’t because I didn’t have to. Without file sharing, I wouldn’t have had it at all. I do pay to support the artists I believe worthy of support (like Cory…got a first edition of Little Brother I hope to get signed one day).

  @#7

  I love the word “scofflaw.”

• [Enochrewt]

  #1: I think Mr. Doctorow would disagree about how many books it sells. I know it spent at least 4 weeks on the NY Times Bestseller list, and that’s because I did a half-assed google search about it. I bet it was longer.

  #4: Many times the people that use p2p filesharing don’t even realize they are using it. For instance World of Warcraft’s patch updates use it, The Electric Sheep screensaver uses it, and the Miro video player project uses bit torrent to download completely legal videos from National Geographic, NASA and a slew of others. I came up with these examples after about 3 seconds of thought. This one I’m not 100% sure on but I believe that folding@home uses p2p file sharing as well. It’s not all pirates and scofflaws out there using it.

• [generic11]

  In my experience, those who use filesharing such as bittorrent, use it to get copyrighted material for free. Through college and after, that’s what everyone I’ve discussed this with use filesharing for. Do you honestly think they are downloading class notes or keys to unlock the cure for cancer through filesharing?

  I think ISPs taking part in limiting this activity is part of the solution. If you are caught stealing, which filesharing of copyrighted material without permission is, you should lose your privilege to the ISP’s service.

  That is only one tool in the toolbox. Maybe it will take other strategies as well. Mostly a change of heart on the side of the downloaders.

  It’s also been stated in may places, that 10% of the users use 90% of the bandwidth. These aren’t scientists doing noble research. It’s the neighborhood kid downloading all 18 effing seasons of Beverly Hills 90210 or whatever.

  Sure, there are legitimate uses for filesharing. If you think I believe that most users use filesharing for something other than downloading music and videos, most of which is copyrighted, then I am going to laugh at you.

  I disagree with the notion that people need to fight back against “evil” corporations/organizations by stealing copyrighted material. 2 wrongs do not make a right. You learn that in kindergarten.

  If you think a new movie is too expensive, don’t buy it. That doesn’t make it right to steal it.

  Althought the RIAA and the MPAA aren’t the most noble organizations on the planet, they do have a right to fight against theft of property.
  That includes suing the little old grandma or single mother down the street. (great fodder for certain tech blogs to bring attention to how “mean” these organizations are.)

  It is almost irritating to me that many tech blogs continue to try to legitimize an activity that amounts to theft.

  Filesharing could be used for good.
  I’m well aware of that.
  It is, by a huge margin, not. Don’t try and convince me that it is used for noble pursuits.
  Seriously. Be honest.

  I’m not going to just vent.
  Here’s a solution:

  Music and movie industry, get off your lazy butts, change your business model to embrace this technology. Use it to distribute and market cheaper, passing these savings on to the customers. Otherwise, people feel entitled to get what you have, for free.

  It takes a teenage kid about 25 seconds to download a bit torrent client, find a server and then start downloading.

• [jonico]

  Thanks Cory, for sharing this with us all, I look forward to reading it~

• [johnphantom]

  This document is an excellent read. I encourage everyone to examine the whole document – it is clear and concise.

  Personally, I only buy music that is from an independent label. I pirate games and if I like the game, I buy it.

  I am writing a book and fully expect it to be pirated. I WILL NOT have any sort of DRM placed upon it, for any reason, if it actually makes publication :)

• [Anonymous]

  @generic,

  if you ran an isp, how would you feel about losing monthly fees to another industry? Regardless of legality, etc, an ISP makes its money by providing a ‘pipe’ to its customers on a monthly basis. Only when that ISP is also a content company this makes sense.

• [Anonymous]

  Generic11:

  < >

  No it’s not. Plain and simple, it is not stealing if I don’t deprive you of the item being stolen.

  < >

  Isn’t that also where you are taught to share?

• [Itsumishi]

  I know dozens of writers who are trying to be cool like Cory by giving away their novels and you know how many they sell? One to their mom and one to a friend.

  Your friends should write better books.

  Music and movie industry, get off your lazy butts, change your business model to embrace this technology. Use it to distribute and market cheaper, passing these savings on to the customers. Otherwise, people feel entitled to get what you have, for free.

  This statement is much more intelligent than anything else in your post.

  What really annoys me is when someone compares copying to stealing. If I steal your car you don’t have it any more.

  If I make an exact copy (or slightly inferior duplicate) of your car I’m not stealing it. If this was easy to do I’d do it all the time. If I really liked the car and had the money I’d pay for the real thing.

  Then again. This is your first post on boing boing and you’re probably paid to write that comment.

• [Anonymous]

  Oh and did you know that the efforts to combat murder and rape in my fair city have had plenty of failures too? Ah, let’s just give up. People who insist on living are just like those selfish artists. They just want to keep consuming the earth’s scarce resources.

  Seriously. No one wants to have draconian laws to protect copyright but is there a better way? I know dozens of writers who are trying to be cool like Cory by giving away their novels and you know how many they sell? One to their mom and one to a friend.

  We’ve worked long and hard to build a system that has a chance of compensating artists. Why do you want to tear it all down?

• [monstrinho_do_biscoito]

  Regardless of it’s impracticality, usefulness or downright stupidity, Gordon Brown WILL implement it in his war on Britain.