First article

Says will eliminate any benefit from encryption while "protecting" users.
There's an interesting new video from the recent State of the Net Conference up on Public Knowledge, in which the RIAA's Cary Sherman discusses ISP content filtering, encryption, fair use, and what role govt should play in it all.

The video is an abridged version which nicely focuses on his answer to 4 important questions, and at the same time points out the fallacy of each.

What’s the RIAA’s stance on content filtering?
Notes that is a "technological problem" with "technological solutions." But, the method he cites is pure fantasy. He says that content filtering is a "targeted approach" that "doesn't stop all copyrighted works, only those that have actually been claimed by copyright owners."

Say what?

He also says it shouldn't be feared by privacy advocates, though he fails to address why it may be bad to have ISPs monitor each and every packet of data transferred across their network for copyrighted material.


What about encryption?
This is where it gets interesting. Sherman says that filters can be placed in "the applications" or "placed on end users computer that could eliminate any, uh, benefit from encryption."

For "When people start moving to encryption and so on, they know they're engaging in illegal conduct," he continues.

Oh really. It couldn't be because they just appreciate their privacy?


What about fair use?
"Record companies and copyright owners rely on fair use as much or more than anybody because everything that they do is built on things that other people have done," Sharman says.

He makes another outrageous claim here in which he compares content filtering to seatbelts and airbags as though it could actually save lives as do they. Talk about a insane.


Should Congress mandate filters for ISPs?
Though praises a European-style regulatory approach, he says that he prefers a "marketplace approach."

He then oddly says that proper network traffic management mandates the need for content filtering as if they go hand in hand. Apparently, in his opinion, network traffic management can be used to educate users that what they're doing may be illegal and therefore choose to stop. It wouldn't be used for "blocking or stopping a transmission, but using it as part of a notification system."

I'm sure the RIAA would be satisfied with ISPs simply notifying users of possible illegal practices and not ask to have its notified as well so it could follow up on the matter. Especially after its legal practices have been full of so much "restraint" up until now right?


May I Legally Rip My CD to My iPod?
Interestingly enough he doesn't take a position on its legality, says that they simply "don't object."

Figures, for I think the RIAA would love for nothing more than for it to be illegal to make any copies of music albums, digital or otherwise.

Moreover, several times Sherman seems to see a future in which your ISP, modem, PC, router, and perhaps even your anti-virus software all work in tandem to protect the profits of the record industry.

Nothing could be scarier.


---


Second article

 Filtering sounds so wholesome. As with filtered water, Internet filtering backers suggest that their products simply keep the sludge from passing through, and who wants to drink unfiltered sludge? The big difference between the two kinds of filtering is that sludge can't use 128-bit keys and AES encryption to hide its sludgy nature; Internet traffic can. It's a key problem for any Internet filtering regime, including the one being studied right now by AT&T. Once strong encryption is slapped on Internet traffic, the effectiveness of filters drops off dramatically.

At a Washington, DC, tech conference last week, RIAA boss Cary Sherman suggested that Internet filtering was a super idea but that he saw no reason to mandate it. Turns out that was only part of the story, though; Sherman's a sharp guy, and he's fully aware that filtering will prompt an encryption arms race that is going to be impossible to win... unless users somehow install the filtering software on their home PCs or equipment.

Last night, Public Knowledge posted a video clip from the conference that drew attention to Sherman's other remarks on the topic of filtering, and what he has to say is downright amazing: due to the encryption problem, filters may need to be put on end users' PCs.

The issue of encryption "would have to be faced," Sherman admitted after talking about the wonders of filtering. "One could have a filter on the end user's computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from encryption because if you want to hear [the music], you would need to decrypt it, and at that point the filter would work."

This means moving the filter out of the network and onto the edges (local machines), since it's at the edges that decryption and playback occurs. But who would voluntarily install software that would continually scan incoming P2P streams for copyrighted material after that material has been decrypted? Or software that would watch every song you played and tried to figure out if it was legit?

Sherman knows it's a tough sell. "Why would somebody put that on their machine?" he asked rhetorically. "They wouldn't likely want to do that."

No... they wouldn't. But Sherman's idea is that customers install filtering software such as virus scanners all the time because they see a tangible benefit to it. Apparently, they are supposed to realize the same benefit from installing a filter that flags as illegal the very music that they are trying to download.

This is clearly not going to happen, so Sherman has another idea. He appears to suggest installing the filter in a customer's cable or DSL modem, which wouldn't act as anything more than a network filter (the encryption and decryption happens on the PC). There's also some talk of putting the filtering tech into "applications" such as P2P apps, but again, this seems unlikely, especially for the open-source ones. Maybe he hopes to get OS vendors on board?
The entire scheme has about as much chance of success as my 2008 bid for the White House (write-in Anderson for President in November!). The only way to make it work is to mandate the filters or have ISPs mandate that users install them to get on the Internet. The consumer backlash from such a plan would be like the force of a thousand supernovas, and it's hard to visualize this happening.

What's most incredible about all of this is that the RIAA and some ISPs (namely AT&T) are seriously moving ahead with a filtering regime despite their own admissions that it won't work. Filters might work, they might allow for fair use, and they could conceivably be built in such a way as to maintain privacy, but it just wouldn't matter. Filtering as a concept is ultimately doomed by encryption unless the "filters" simply block entire protocols altogether, and talking about the consumer benefits of installing RIAA-approved filtering software is just another sign of how ludicrous the entire debate has become.


It's time to find a better solution with more than a short-term chance of success.
Lease Reviewed by Lease on . [8/2/08]RIAA Wants Anti-Virus Software to Filter Pirated Content? First article Says will eliminate any benefit from encryption while "protecting" users. There's an interesting new video from the recent State of the Net Conference up on Public Knowledge, in which the RIAA's Cary Sherman discusses ISP content filtering, encryption, fair use, and what role govt should play in it all. The video is an abridged version which nicely focuses on his answer to 4 important questions, and at the same time points out the fallacy of each. What’s the RIAA’s Rating: 5