The seesaw ride of Web throttling and copyright
Sat, 2008-05-24 07:30
#1
Russell McOrmond
The seesaw ride of Web throttling and copyright
Sat, 2008-05-24 07:30
#2
Russell McOrmond
I saw the article by Wayne MacPhail talking about Net Neutrality and Copyright.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=71670]http://www.rabble.ca/...
The issues were being spoken about as if they are separate, but for the most controversial and concrete aspects they are very related. The issues come down to a question of who should control our communications technology: device manufacturers and network operators, or Citizens.
I wrote about it here: [url=http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4663]http://www.digital-copyright.c...
Mon, 2008-05-26 09:19
#3
Wayne said:
quote:
And, if you're in the mood for some more active activism, you can join in on a net neutrality rally that's been called on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on [b]May 27.[/b]
Jeez, that's TOMORROW! Be there or be square Ottawa babblers.
Wed, 2008-05-28 04:43
#4
I posted some photos and video of the protest in the media thread on [b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002548]Net Neutrality[/url][/b]
Fri, 2008-05-30 09:30
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Russell McOrmond:
[b]The issues come down to a question of who should control our communications technology: device manufacturers and network operators, or Citizens.[/b]
Do the citizens own the network technology?
Fri, 2008-05-30 09:43
#6
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]
Do the citizens own the network technology?[/b]
No but we paid for the underlying infrastructure that made the internet possible. Computers and the beginnings of the internet are the result of taxpayer funded research in the U.S., a country where the internet works better in some parts of the U.S. than most others since deregulation of that country's telecom sector in 1996.
The internet and world wide web is far from completion. And it should never be considered merely another capitalist service. The internet is a relatively new form of communication, and it has implications for democracy and how people communicate with one another. A well educated and informed public is vital to democracy in general. Therefore equal access and neutrality are of paramount importance.
Fri, 2008-05-30 10:36
#7
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]
Do the citizens own the network technology?[/b]
When we are talking about the wires, the answer is 'maybe' given we as citizens subsidized these companies to build the network. Should we call back those subsidies, with interests? Could these companies afford to exist if this was done?
These wires are placed above and below public and private property. Governments which we elect gave these companies the right-of-way to install these wires. If we were to start a feud between the property rights holders, the owners of the land would win out. If the phone and cable companies were retroactively charged rent for these wires it would easily wipe them out financially.
If we are to move to a world where the network operators can claim ownership rights, then we need to split up the network and separate the parts that can exist in a competitive marketplace from those that are a natural monopoly. It makes no more sense to expect every network operator to run their own last-mile connections as it does for every brick-and-mortar retailer to run their own roads. Those parts that are a natural monopoly must remain highly regulated or government managed (like our road system and other utilities). Competitive forces would then deal with any issues with the higher-level networking services.
See also: [url=http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/03/20/an-ideal-future-commu... ideal future communications infrastructure, how do we get there, and what is stopping us![/url]
Fri, 2008-05-30 13:20
#8
I'm still not following why the web is special/different from other services.
We throttle our road system by fixing speed limits, restricting types of vehicles, etc. We throttle our airways with height restrictions, routes, etc. We throttle our phone service, my basic phone plan only allows me to talk to one person at a time.
Fri, 2008-05-30 15:05
#9
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]We throttle our road system by fixing speed limits, restricting types of vehicles, etc. We throttle our airways with height restrictions, routes, etc. We throttle our phone service, my basic phone plan only allows me to talk to one person at a time.[/b]
The phone system was designed around a theory for network metrics that said no more than 25% of subscribers would ever go off-hook at any one time. Things have changed since the 1970's with addition of dial up services and beginnings of internet service.
But why should access speed limits vary so widely from country to country? According to the Communications Workers of America Union, median advertised download speed across the U.S. was 1.92 Mbps. in the same survey of a couple of years ago, it was 7.6 Mbps here in Canada. But broadband penetration here in Canada is mainly due to strong telecom regulations not by following the Americans for deregulation. Median download speeds are far greater(and cheaper) in developed countries with strong federal regulations for telecom.
Fri, 2008-05-30 20:16
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Russell McOrmond:
[b]The issues were being spoken about as if they are separate, but for the most controversial and concrete aspects they are very related. The issues come down to a question of who should control our communications technology: device manufacturers and network operators, or Citizens.[/b]
This sounds very strange.
They are two totally different issues. Copyright is about what level of control creators of artistic works should have over their distribution, versus the rights of the consumers of those works. At root, it isn't even really about communications, or communications technology.
Network neutrality is about what level of influence the owner of a medium should have over the information that travels over that medium.
Fri, 2008-05-30 20:33
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]This sounds very strange.[/b]
Yes it does. But ISP's have done and plan to continue kgb'ing your stuff in future by way of expensive and intrusive deep packet inspection technology, allegedly to prevent subscribers from distributing copyrighted material. The issues are directly related.
Sat, 2008-05-31 08:22
#12
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]I'm still not following why the web is special/different from other services.We throttle our road system by fixing speed limits, restricting types of vehicles, etc. We throttle our airways with height restrictions, routes, etc. We throttle our phone service, my basic phone plan only allows me to talk to one person at a time.[/b]
You have the right analogy, but the wrong conclusion. Phone and Cable is currently different from every other utility (like roads, water, sewers, electricity, etc) where the basic infrastructure is managed by the government in an open and transparent way, and then the private sector provides value-added services on top of that. This way we don't end up with non-transparent anti-competitive problems with services that have a last-mile monopoly. It makes no more sense for every communications company to run their own wires to your home as for every retailer to run their own roads.
(See my article linked above on the ideal communications infrastructure)
This gets into the legitimacy of throttling of bandwidth by Bell. They claim they are doing this because the pipes are full, but there is no evidence that the pipes they are throttling (the ones between you and your actual ISP) are legitimately full. It would be like the municipality deliberately blocking roads and then claiming they need to charge a premium to let you get past. The blockage was self-inflicted, and thus should not be allowed to be abused as a justification for throttling.
If we had transparency and accountability of the rules they were using to decide when and what to throttle, there wouldn't be a problem. If we disagreed with the specific rules of an ISP, we could just switch ISPs. In the current situation they are imposing policy on the networks without disclosing the reasons or legitimacy, and the phone and cable companies (not real ISPs anyway) are doing this not to their customers, but their competitors customers.
Sat, 2008-05-31 08:35
#13
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]This sounds very strange.
[/b]
It [b]is[/b] very strange.
These issues [b]should[/b] be different and unrelated, but have been merged by various special interest groups.
Some copyright holders (independent, not just big corporate), their associations/unions/coalitions, and politicians believe that the way to deal with copyright infringement is to transfer the enforcement of copyright from law enforcement and the courts to technology. This is done by granting the providers of the technology (communications providers and device manufacturers) the legalized ability to control what is communicated using "their" technology.
The problem is, from a purely technological point of view the activities of creativity and the activity of copyright infringement are identical. You record/author, edit and communicate knowledge. Differentiating between creativity and copyright infringement is something that requires human intervention -- there is no way around this.
The only way copyright enforcement can work is if it is left as something managed by human law enforcement and the courts. Any attempt to have this enforced in technology will reduce the ability of citizens to create and communicate their own creativity -- which is a net negative for creators and society as a whole.
Net Neutrality, the 1996 WIPO treaties (which are biased against citizen/creator ownership/control over technology), the mis-titled Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA -- which has little to nothing to do with counterfeiting) are all very connected in that they are about this transfer of control from the law and citizens to the monopolistic/concentrated providers of technology.
Sat, 2008-05-31 08:51
#14
[url=http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html][b]David Isenberg[/b] (U.S.)[/url] on "Rise of the Stupid Network" or Why the Intelligent Network was once a good idea, but isn't anymore
quote:
Design-by-assumption works as long as assumptions hold. Assumptions are shortcuts to useful efficiencies, provided they are not violated. The classic telephone company value proposition, embodied in today's telephone network, holds:
[LIST][*] that expensive, scarce infrastructure can be shared to offer premium priced services, [*] that talk - the human voice - generates most of the traffic, [*] that circuit-switched calls are the "communications technologies" that matter, and [*] that the telephone company is in control of its network[/LIST]
All of those assumptions are obsolete today
Sat, 2008-05-31 10:46
#15
Russell McOrmond
Ironically, some of those assumptions weren't all that valid in the past. Voice circuits were originally analog from point-to-point. When they started to be digitized, they were the equivalent of 56K of traffic. What the phone companies wanted to do was use voice codecs to compress this data so that they could then under-build their networks (compared to what they were already doing) based on assumptions of what frequencies were in voice.
Modems of course screwed that up given they needed far more sound spectrum than a human talking would, and in the 80's there was an attempt to charge more for modem usage than voice calls based on this difference (and claims that it cost more to support modems).
But we need to go back -- this was phone companies trying to charge more money for less service. They had always had 56k (well, 64k for 8 bits, 56k for 7 bits) links from point to point in the past, and would need the same 56K for modems (yes, they had to push 56k of data for our 28.8kbps modems -- part of the silliness of analog modems which made ISDN far more sensible, if they had priced it appropriate to actual lower costs).
One of my arguments at the time was simple: are they going to charge me extra if I had Metallica (I was a fan in the 80's, but dropped in 2000 when they sued Napster) in the background and screwed up their compression?
This is why we need transparency and accountability for the telecom industry. There are times when there is legitimate congestion, and we need to have transparent and accountable rules used to handle that congestion. We also have what are essentially deliberate capacity limitations, attempts to circumvent existing regulation, or anti-competitive issues which are being alleged to be technical issues when they are not.
I believe (as the NDP private members bill says) that there are times when traffic management is legitimate and necessary, but that all that decision making has to be fully transparent to customers (and regulators). Not talked about in the NDP private members bill is the need to have sufficient competitors using alternative traffic management plans and pricing.
Sun, 2008-06-01 08:52
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]...ISP's have done and plan to continue kgb'ing your stuff...[/b]
Unusual turn of phrase for you to use, Fidel.
Sun, 2008-06-01 10:55
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Unusual turn of phrase for you to use, Fidel.[/b]
Neither the KGB nor East German Stasi were close to [url=http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/208]this kind of ruthless efficiency[/url] when it came to invading people's privacy.
Sun, 2008-06-01 12:12
#18
Oh please. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2008-06-01 12:40
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Russell McOrmond:
[b]But we need to go back -- this was phone companies trying to charge more money for less service. They had always had 56k (well, 64k for 8 bits, 56k for 7 bits) links from point to point in the past, and would need the same 56K for modems (yes, they had to push 56k of data for our 28.8kbps modems -- part of the silliness of analog modems which made ISDN far more sensible, if they had priced it appropriate to actual lower costs).[/b]
Exactly. T1/E1 is old technology now, and telcos have engineered well within the limits of Shannon's Law since 9600 baud and 28.8k barriers were broken. Carriers have been able to increase channels by laying bigger trunklines and-or more of them. And now wireless 3G and 4G technologies will work closer to that barrier as well.
Sun, 2008-06-01 18:20
#20
quote:
Russell McOrmond said:
[b]Some ... believe that the way to deal with copyright infringement is to transfer the enforcement of copyright from law enforcement and the courts to technology. This is done by granting the providers of the technology (communications providers and device manufacturers) the legalized ability to control what is communicated using "their" technology.[/b]
But this has always been legal. Intellectual property has been enforced using technological controls for a long time now. Satellite TV wouldn't exist without such controls.
Anti-cracking features built into Commodore 64 software was based on some of the same principles that DRM software uses today.
The problem isn't with technology that protects copyright, it's with legislation mandating such technology. For instance, we'd run into trouble where it might become mandatory for all music player manufacturers to support a given audio DRM scheme.
Consider that the network neutrality discussion hinges on whether legislation might remedy the problem. The copyright discussion, by contrast, revolves around problems that are [i]created[/i] by legislation.
quote:
[b]Any attempt to have this enforced in technology will reduce the ability of citizens to create and communicate their own creativity -- which is a net negative for creators and society as a whole.[/b]
I'd be interested to hear specific examples of technological controls against copyright limiting someone's ability to create original material.
Mon, 2008-06-02 05:17
#21
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]I'd be interested to hear specific examples of technological controls against copyright limiting someone's ability to create original material.[/b]
You dove into a number of different technical issues which would need to be discussed separately in order to make sense of them.
The concept of "copy control", and what is now often called "Digital Rights Management" are not the same thing.
Copy control was most often done as a deliberate defect in the media which made copying harder. (IE: C-64 disks with deliberately placed holes in them so that the drive would read random data from that sector). It did not involve making modifications to the computer that would then be owned by citizens. They were also trivial to circumvent, and did not have any legal protection.
I worked in a Commodore dealer for a few years in the late 1980's. Given the physical damage to the drives that these "copy control" methods would cause (the drive head would be forced out of alignment), it was common practise for many dealers to hand long-standing customers the cracked version of any of the games they were buying.
Many (possibly still most) Satellite TV isn't encrypted, and doesn't have adequate controls on them. If they did upgrade their technology to use a crypto system it would wipe out most of the unauthorized reception fairly quickly. Even if the Satellite TV systems did use proper crypto it would still be largely outside the "DRM" debate as most of the reception devices are owned by the satellite company (and thus should be under their control) and not the home owner where the device is placed. We have different laws for "owners" and "renters" for a reason, and this should apply to digital hardware as well.
The easiest way to summarize the issue is this: Computer security and "DRM" use the underlying technology, but because of differences in who retains the digital keys implement different policies. Computer security is all about the owner of a device being able to lock unauthorized persons from accessing or controlling the device. "DRM" is all about a third party (most often the device manufacturer) being able to lock the owner of the device from being able to access and control the device.
It is hard to give you your specific example as we currently do not have end-to-end DRM systems. The DRM providers know that they need to get governments to pass the laws before they deploy the technology, otherwise there will be a greater understanding of the threats by the public which would make passing the laws harder. It is known to be far harder to get rid of existing bad laws than not passing them in the first place. Even simple mistakes like the Sony Rootkit fiasco has made passing these laws harder.
Today we have a few "output-only" devices such as an iPod which are locked down against their owner, but we don't generally have devices used for recording or editing which are similarly locked down. You need to be watching the global policy discussions to know what those who believe that locking down devices against their owners are doing. If you read up on the "Broadcast flag" or "closing the analog hole" you will find that the intent is to lock down camcorders and "personal" computers as well (all digital devices).
Picture this: You have a locked-down camcorder that has watermark detection in it. Your child takes their first steps, but unfortunately it is in front of the television and the camcorder goes dark because it detects the watermarks from the television. There is no way for this device to differentiate between a "pirate" and a "parent".
Closer to our current situation (locked down playback devices only), look at the massive problems the music industry is having with Apple. Such a large percentage of the music download market is owned by Apple that Apple is able to dictate terms to the labels rather than the other way around. In order to fight this the labels have been forced to make their music DRM-free (IE: more valuable to the customer) to competing outlets, while still forcing Apple to use DRM. The reality is that the only thing that this form of DRM accomplishes is create a platform monopoly where the hardware manufacturer (the keeper of the DRM keys) is able to leverage that monopoly to dictate terms to both the content industry and their audiences.
The same market and cultural problems that exist with other forms of media concentration exists here, except that there is public policy trying to discourage media concentration while this platform monopoly is legally protected by most implementations of the 1996 WIPO treaties (and this is included in ACTA, etc).
It is interesting how there is so much talk about C-10 which gives the Minister unaccountable control over the government funding of film and television. While important, this is an insignificant threat compared to the unaccountable market control for the distribution of content that platform monopolies are.
There is a cool video about "Trusted Computing" which explains the concept well: [url=http://lafkon.net/tc/]http://lafkon.net/tc/[/url]
Part of the problem with this discussion is that there are so many very different meanings of the different language ("copy control", "Digital Rights Management", "Trusted Computing").
To be clear, I'm talking about two specific harmful techniques: locking down devices where the owners are not given keys, and locking down content to only be interoperable with locked down devices. I believe that the owners of devices and legitimate audiences (IE: paid customers) of content should always have the relevant keys.
Mon, 2008-06-02 05:31
#22
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]But this has always been legal.[/b]
Sorry -- I don't think I managed to make this point clear.
Copy control and other manipulations of 'content' have always been legal.
Device controls which lock down hardware against the interests of their owners is already in a murky legal state. This is why organizations like CIPPIC have brought the Privacy Commissioner and others into the debate.
I want to repeat what you said about "legislation mandating such technology". The status-quo is that it is clearly legal for someone to exercise their property rights and to remove foreign locks from hardware which they own.
Where things get murky is whether we are similarly legally allowed to access content which we have legally acquired on these unlocked devices. One of my submissions to the 2001 consultation offered an example of me circumventing a DRM in order to access legally acquired content [url=http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001-cmpda-reply.shtml]http://www.flora.ca...
Where things get murky on the "net neutrality" side is that it is currently the state of the law that common carriers are not supposed to inspect and manipulate traffic. With the Bell throttling of third-party ISP traffic, this is inspection and manipulation of a regulated GAS service. To allow this inspection and manipulation will be a re-interpretation of the existing law that is different than how it was interpreted in the past. This is just as much a change in the law in our common law legal system (Canada and provinces except Quebec) as a bill passed by parliament.
What the CRTC is currently studying and ruling on, and any appeals to the courts is just as much law making in Canada as what is happening on parliament hill.
Mr. Angus' private members bill helps to clarify the situation, but isn't at all a radical change from the most reasonable interpretation of the status-quo. His bill should be a no-brainer, but I'm sceptical that it will get through with the current level of understanding of the issues by politicians.
Mon, 2008-06-02 06:55
#23
quote:
(IE: C-64 disks with deliberately placed holes in them so that the drive would read random data from that sector).
I was actually talking about anti-debugging techniques in software that were used to try to stop crackers who removed the early copy protection schemes (eg. "Type the third word in the second paragraph on page 24 of the manual to continue"). When you look at trusted media paths in drivers and hardware, you can trace their roots back to this sort of thing in th 1980s. They were circumventable, but not trivially. It's true it didn't involve special hardware.
quote:
Many (possibly still most) Satellite TV isn't encrypted, and doesn't have adequate controls on them. If they did upgrade their technology to use a crypto system it would wipe out most of the unauthorized reception fairly quickly.
Maybe you're not that into satellite TV piracy (not that I'm confessing anything), but it totally uses proper encryption. There is a huge arms race between satellite providers and crackers. It reads like a spy novel. (Read the Tarnovsky interview).
I brought it up as an example of technological protection of intellectual property. I don't understand why the 'owner' vs 'renter' distinction is important: their legitimate customers are 'renters' only because the technological protections try to make it hard for 'owners' to decode their signals.
---------------------
To speak to the general point: You are not happy about TPMs and similar technologies that can serve to reduce functionality of hardware.
I don't have a problem with them at all, [b]provided they are not legislatively mandated[/b]. TPMs, for instance, have all sorts of legitimate uses. It is a security-enhancing technology. Bruce Potter (founder of Shmoocon, and old sk00l hacker) gave a talk at Black Hat 2006 advocating for TPMs (there's a video around somewhere if you care to google for it, slides are here).
Apple uses TPMs to bind OS X to Apple-produced hardware. This doesn't serve the consumer, but ultimately it doesn't harm us that much. The two answers for those unhappy about it are: don't buy Macs, or work harder on trying to unbind it (thank you Hackint0sh).
An important point to recognize is that device manufacturers are on our side. They make money in part by loading up hardware with features people want. They don't voluntarily cripple the products they sell, unless the benefit to doing so surpasses the cost. The benefit comes only insofar as consumers want the things that are made available via DRM.
And that's really important: Consumers decide how much control and functionality to relinquish in exchange for content. If a device (like the watermark-detecting camcorder) is crippled in a way that makes consumers hate it, they'll stop buying it, so the manufacturer loses (note: no manufacturer would add such a technology unless forced to do so by government). But if the loss of functionality is relatively unobtrusive, and consumers get real benefit as a result (eg. I can download music from iTunes) then the device will do well. Contrast the failure of MusicNet with the success of iTunes for examples of this phenomenon.
Mon, 2008-06-02 07:09
#24
quote:
Device controls which lock down hardware against the interests of their owners is already in a murky legal state.
I am skeptical of this. What law would make this murky?
Of course, if that was illegal, all recent Mac computers would be illegal (as mentioned in my previous post).
One might point out that the extremely common practice of market tiering by chip manufacturers -- whereby they make only high-end chips, but hobble many of them for sale in the low-end market -- is not really any different. Only the intent is different (it allows chip manufacturers to make more money). Overclockers take advantage of this.
quote:
The status-quo is that it is clearly legal for someone to exercise their property rights and to remove foreign locks from hardware which they own.
Yes. This is what I'm talking about when I argue the status quo is mostly reasonable, but some proposed legislation is not.
quote:
Where things get murky on the "net neutrality" side is that it is currently the state of the law that common carriers are not supposed to inspect and manipulate traffic.
I've not heard it argued that DPI is already illegal. Do you have links on that? Does it not cause a problem with honouring Quality of Service flags?
Mon, 2008-06-02 07:40
#25
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Maybe you're not that into satellite TV piracy (not that I'm confessing anything), but it totally uses proper encryption.[/b]
I think we will quickly get into a longer discussion of what is an adequate use of encryption, which would confuse the heck out of most of the audience. Customer specific decryption keys and the necessity to periodically synchronize with a key server would solve the problem. The current system pretends you can deploy the receivers and not communicate bidirectionally with them, which isn't an adequate security system.
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]I don't understand why the 'owner' vs 'renter' distinction is important: their legitimate customers are 'renters' only because the technological protections try to make it hard for 'owners' to decode their signals.[/b]
This distinction is critical.
If a given method to protect your intangible property value (IE: copyright infringement is not 'theft', it is just an illegal reduction of property value. See: [url=http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate]Jefferson Debate: A Godwin's law for copyright discussions?[/url]) involved revoking my [url=http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/]tangible property rights in the hardware I own[/url], then your method of protection is invalid (and should be illegal).
I wrote an article
[url=http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3728]Another meaning for DRM: Dishonest Relationship Misinformation[/url] to detail the issue. We need to protect the rights of the owners of information technology to retain and manage the keys for what they own, and to disallow unauthorized foreign locks. Copyright is the least of the public policy issues that are implicated by legalizing or legally protecting these foreign locks.
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]I don't have a problem with them at all, [b]provided they are not legislatively mandated[/b]. TPMs, for instance, have all sorts of legitimate uses. It is a security-enhancing technology.[/b]
Making these foreign locks legislatively mandated makes the situation far worse, but market conditions in a fully deregulated marketplace can ultimately have the same effect. Governments are not the only forces that can remove choices from and regulate the activities of citizens.
(See: [url=http://www.code-is-law.org/]Code: and other laws of cyberspace[/url])
We got caught in language again, given the term 'TPM' (whether "Technical Protection Measure" or "Trusted Platform Module") is a reference to a generic technology that is neutral to this specific debate.
Whether a given use of this technology is security-enhancing or anti-security isn't a technical issue, but a policy issue. The only distinguishing feature is [b]who retains and manages the keys[/b]. If it is the owner of the device (or their authorized representative), then it is security enhancing (and should have legal protection providing additional support to the technology). If the keys are held by someone not the owner of the device, and the device is specifically locked to disallow owner control or owner override, then this abuse should be illegal.
It is the same with a lock put on the door of a home. If the keys are controlled by the owner, then it is security enhancing. If the keys are controlled by someone else, and the purpose of the lock is to disallow the owner to enter their own home without permission from the third party, the same technology (a locked door) has an almost opposite policy implication. A lawsuit by the owners against the person who applied this foreign lock would likely be successful, but we don't have the same legal certainty if the lock is digital rather than physical.
Legalizing and legally protecting digital locks which revoke owner control and owner override is the issue I'm trying to bring up. Everything else turns out to be confusion caused by confusing language.
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]And that's really important: Consumers decide how much control and functionality to relinquish in exchange for content.[/b]
I believe that "buyer veware" is a dangerously simplistic view of the issues. We must analyse market conditions and create and enforce policy such as competition law, privacy law, consumer protection laws, anti-counterfeiting laws, property and rental laws, and so-on. Much of our legal system is based on an understanding that the interests of society need to be protected far beyond just saying "buyer beware".
Have you read the clauses we used in our [url=http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/]Petition to protect Information Technology property rights[/url]? Do you believe that what we are calling on the government to do is valid? Would you sign this, and recommend others sign it?
Mon, 2008-06-02 08:07
#26
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]I've not heard it argued that DPI is already illegal. Do you have links on that? Does it not cause a problem with honouring Quality of Service flags?[/b]
DPI by an ISP isn't already illegal, and there is little to no regulation at this level of the protocol stack. DPI by a regulated last-mile phone company of generic data circuits likely is. The distinction is important, but often missed.
What Bell has been caught doing with their DPI of data connections of their competitors (Bell, not Sympatico), and what Rogers is doing with their DPI of Internet connections of their customers, are actually quite different from a policy point of view.
Bell is mandated to offer various data services to competitors, based on their control over the last-mile into homes and businesses (which we granted them through right-of-way over public and private property). This isn't an "Internet" service at this level, but a regulated data service between the customer premise and the ISP. Inspecting that data service to the level to even determine that it is "Internet" traffic may be found to be a violation of the regulation and common carrier status of the phone company.
Inspecting and manipulating this regulated data service is the basis of the CAIP complaint against Bell. While the CAIP did not receive their preliminary injunction as they could not prove irreparable harm, this does not suggest that they won't win against Bell in the end.
(aside: If anything, the issue being brought before the courts and media, and the resulting public outcry, may bring irreparable harm to Bell. In this context a preliminary injunction against Bell wouldn't have made sense)
Discussion of QoS is when things get complex, and is where I have to diverge from some Net Neutrality activists.
I believe that with adequate mandatory transparency of network management practises, and adequate competition between multiple management practises, that management could be turned from something that is harmful to citizens into something that is beneficial. There are times when congestion is legitimate, and there will always be policies to determine what to do with congestion (current "best effort" is a policy, although not always an ideal one). Our ability to choose ISPs and specific data packages to match the transparent policy with our specific needs should be protected.
I disagree with the idea promoted by some that the "best effort" policy should be mandated in law.
This is similar to my views on TPMs --- technology which allows someone to implement policy is not itself a problem, and can be of great benefit. The problems come from non-technical issues around adequate transparency of the policy as well as who sets the policy (and who the policy is enforced against).
Mon, 2008-06-02 09:32
#27
quote:
I think we will quickly get into a longer discussion of what is an adequate use of encryption, which would confuse the heck out of most of the audience. Customer specific decryption keys and the necessity to periodically synchronize with a key server would solve the problem. The current system pretends you can deploy the receivers and not communicate bidirectionally with them, which isn't an adequate security system.
I'd be surprised if this thread has any audience at all besides us.
Customer-specific keys is impossible in the context of satellite broadcasting. That would mean you'd have to broadcast special encrypted information to every single subscriber from a satellite. And how do you communicate bidirectionally with a [i]receiver[/i], which by definition is unidirectional? (When satellite systems want feedback from the receiver, like for a user to order Pay-Per-View, it does so by the receiver placing a call on landline -- which is not practical in all situations.)
-----------------
I'd like to read some of your links and respond further when I have time. For the petition, I agree with most of it, except for the point that we have been discussing. I think it's the wrong course of action for the government to start legislating what functionality may or may not be included in devices (although as of course we both agree, it is also quite wrong for the government to give certain functions legal protection).
I have always opposed extension of copyright terms. Actually my involvement in this debate started a little over 10 years ago when a website of which I was a big fan put up a notice asking readers to oppose a bill before Congress, which later came to be called the Copyright Term Extension Act. I read up on the issue, including the extensive FSF literature on copyright, realized Eldred made an extremely compelling case, and started advocating for limited copyright long before it was popular to do so. The website in question was run by a fellow named Eric Eldred, who later put up a notice on his website that he was initiating a lawsuit against Attorney General Janet Reno to try to have the legislation overturned. Some guy named Larry Lessig represented him. The case changed from Eldred v Reno to Eldred v Ashcroft in 2001, and I'm sure you know how it ended.
I am quite familiar with what Jefferson and Madison have written on the subject. And I agree that there is no natural property right to what economists call non-excludible goods. The 'owner' vs 'renter' point was in regard to satellite television receivers, not copyrighted works, so you didn't really respond to what I said.
quote:
I believe that "buyer veware" is a dangerously simplistic view of the issues. We must analyse market conditions and create and enforce policy such as competition law, privacy law, consumer protection laws, anti-counterfeiting laws, property and rental laws, and so-on. Much of our legal system is based on an understanding that the interests of society need to be protected far beyond just saying "buyer beware".
I'd like to respond to this bit later.
Mon, 2008-06-02 10:02
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]And how do you communicate bidirectionally with a receiver, which by definition is unidirectional?[/b]
I think the Soviets were developing bidirectional(full duplex) GPS-satellite comms in the 1970's. You'd be surprised with what's possible today.
[ 02 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Mon, 2008-06-02 10:26
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think the Soviets developed bidirectional(full duplex) GPS-sattelite comms in the 1970's. You'd be surprised with what's possible today.[/b]
Yes, I am really surprised that the Soviets could transmit in the 1970s to an American military system that wasn't operational until the 1980s.
Of course, once a receiver can transmit, it's no longer called a [i]receiver[/i], which was my point. It's a transceiver.
Mon, 2008-06-02 10:36
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Yes, I am really surprised that the Soviets could transmit in the 1970s to an American military system that wasn't operational until the 1980s.[/b]
The Soviets had their own satellites. Remember Sputnik? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS]Septentrio, Topcon, JAVAD, Magellan Navigation, Novatel, and Trimble Inc[/url] produce GNSS receivers making use of GLONASS.
Mon, 2008-06-02 10:53
#31
GLONASS is not GPS.
Mon, 2008-06-02 11:02
#32
Russell McOrmond
I'm hoping we have a bigger audience than just the two of us. For some of this it is techie insider, but most of it is public policy stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Customer-specific keys is impossible in the context of satellite broadcasting. That would mean you'd have to broadcast special encrypted information to every single subscriber from a satellite.[/b]
Here has been my proposal to the broadcasters for decades. Encrypt the broadcast content in a session-specific symmetric key, and then distribute that key encrypted in customer specific keys. The one-way key distribution could be done in an alternate 'channel, and even with millions of customers this is still less data than a streaming movie (especially when we consider HD).
I can't claim to have come up with this scheme as it isn't all that different from what PGP does.
Periodic key updates could then happen on another backchannel, and it is the key updating that would allow for the detection and deactivation of unauthorized receivers. How often updates would be required depends on many factors, including active investigations of unauthorized key sharing. Given the keys would be unique, it would allow for easy key revoking (and related lawsuits) if ever unauthorized key sharing is detected. For most people this would be a connection over the Internet, but the technology would be able to have plug-ins for a variety of alternative methods (for those who have satellite but no Internet). This backchannel would be very low-bandwidth, so could be done over a 300bps modem if that is all that was possible.
Not surprisingly, this is related to the system proposed for Advanced Access Content System (AACS - Used with Blue Ray/etc), except that the unique keys would be owned by customers and interoperable across all devices, rather than embedded within locked-down vendor controlled devices.
Enough on the technical stuff. That is a bit of a side-track from the policy questions. It is unfortunate that these technical issues end up being used (and abused) to confuse the issues. Similar problem with the Net Neutrality debate where Bell is trying to confuse people between Internet Transit congestion (a legitimate issue) and inter-CO congestion (a largely illegitimate issue, given the relative costs of inter-CO capacity compared to other parts of the network).
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]I think it's the wrong course of action for the government to start legislating what functionality may or may not be included in devices (although as of course we both agree, it is also quite wrong for the government to give certain functions legal protection).[/b]
I guess where we may be off on this point is that I don't believe the "who has and maintains the keys to digital locks" is a technical issue, or a functional issue, but entirely a public policy issue.
I strongly agree with you that governments shouldn't be creating technological mandates, but that the government should and must be involved in cases where technology is enforcing policy on the public. We can't create a vacuum where we create two types of policy which regulate the public: public policy authored by and enforced by the public sector (legislators, the courts and police), and public policy authored by and enforced by the private sector (software authors and computing hardware -- whether in phone switchers, routers, or our "personal" devices).
Privatization and deregulation of some commercial sectors is bad enough, but we can't allow the privatization of the authoring and enforcement of public policy.
For the public sector we very appropriately create levels of required transparency and accountability, which includes things like access to information and privacy laws. Similar laws must exist for the privately authored public policy contained within digital technology.
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]The 'owner' vs 'renter' point was in regard to satellite television receivers, not copyrighted works, so you didn't really respond to what I said.[/b]
As far as I can tell I only responded with regard to communications technology (which includes satellite television receivers), not copyright.
I did reference copyright infringement as an illegal reduction of property value, but the remainder of the paragraphs spoke about the importance of protecting honest relationships between who is an "owner" of tangible information technology (hardware) and those who are non-owners (such as renters).
Current "DRM" systems have created an oddball undefinable relationship where someone is lead to believe they are an "owner", but where things that should be understood as clearly ownership rights are circumvented technologically (and legally if DMCA style legislation is passed in Canada).
If we forced those who want to retain control technology to be "owners", this would enable society to clarify the legal relationships and allow us to build the digital technology equivalent of "Tenants protection". We need to clarify the rights and responsibilities between these parties, something that is thus far undefined.
By the way, the latest rumours is that the new Copyright bill will be tabled on Wednesday. I'm hoping that this thread will be useful to allow people to understand the "Legal protection for technical measures used by copyright holders in conjunction with their copyright related rights" part of the resulting debate.
Mon, 2008-06-02 11:24
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]GLONASS is not GPS.[/b]
GLONASS is a Soviet-Russian version of GPS. Suffice to say that GPS is not GLONASS. Just admit you were clueless and we'll leave it at that. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 02 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Mon, 2008-06-02 11:57
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Just admit you were clueless and we'll leave it at that.[/b]
After [i]you[/i] said the Soviets were communicating with GPS in the 1970s?
Mon, 2008-06-02 12:49
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]After [i]you[/i] said the Soviets were communicating with GPS in the 1970s?[/b]
No [i]you[/i] said that just now.
It was conceived of in the 60's and development work began in the 1970's. But it was [i]you[/i] who implied that the Soviets had no alternatives but to use U.S. defence satellites. And [i]that[/i] was most definitely not true.
And since I'm out of my depth here with self-described techies using big words like "bidirectional", I think I'll slink off at this point in my nit-pick before mods come down on me.
Mon, 2008-06-02 13:14
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think the Soviets developed bidirectional(full duplex) GPS-sattelite comms in the 1970's. You'd be surprised with what's possible today.
[ 02 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ][/b]
As did the Americans.
Mon, 2008-06-02 13:49
#37
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]As did the Americans.[/b]
He was pondering why BellXpressView would use cheaper landline for endpoint service charges vs more extravagant satellite uplinks. Or something. Anyway, carry on ...
Wed, 2008-06-04 05:40
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]After [i]you[/i] said the Soviets were communicating with GPS in the 1970s?[/b]
Just ignore him, I think he's off his "кресло-качалка".
And whatever you do, don't mention "Cuba".
Wed, 2008-06-04 05:50
#39
Another example of you trolling, scooter. You're on a roll this morning, aren't you?
Once more and you're on vacation. To everyone else: please don't respond to the bait.
Wed, 2008-06-04 07:29
#40
My bad. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-06-19 03:20
#41
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=faaae0dd5de5870e178bd7... Canada cloning a lousy US copyright law?[/url]
A Wayne MacPhail article we can probably all agree on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Ever been locked out of your own house? Maybe you lost your keys, whatever. Anyway, you wind up calling a locksmith who lets you in and replaces the locks. All fine, all legal.But what if the government made owning lockpicks illegal? It's your house, you have a right to enter it, and you don't intend to steal anything, but you couldn't get back in because the tool you need, for this perfectly legal act, has been outlawed.
Not a great situation. Hold that thought.
Last week Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner introduced Bill C-61, the long awaited revamped copyright reform bill. It's really a Canadian redraft of the ten-year-old U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Well, more correctly, it's an imperfect clone with some unfortunate genetic mutations.
On the surface some of the changes seem benign. It looks, for example, like Canadians will be able to time shift video, copy music to an iPod or other MP3 player or format shift content (go from analog to digital versions). Those acts were not allowed under the DMCA and were rumoured not to be in an earlier version of Bill C-61. They were added as a substitute for true public consultation, which we were promised but never got.
But, the bill also provides for digital lock provisions. That basically means that you can do all those things, unless the content owner has put digital rights management (DRM) code on the media to prevent that - and the movie and music industries love DRM even though it's been proven to be junk science.
Thu, 2008-06-19 05:18
#42
Russell McOrmond
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=faaae0dd5de5870e178bd7... Canada cloning a lousy US copyright law?[/url]A Wayne MacPhail article we can probably all agree on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[/b]
Good start, but the situation is far worse than he describes.
quote:
By Russell McOrmond
[b]When I am explaining DRM to politicians, I feel like I am Ralph Nader back in 1965. He explained that with an automobile accident there are two collisions: the car hits something, and the passenger hits the car. While automobile safety up to that point concentrated only on the first collision, it was quickly understood that safety features should concentrate on the second collision. This gave us dashboards that weren't made out of metal, seatbelts, air bags, and other such second-collision safety features. We have the same problem with DRM where policy makers think there is only one "digital lock" being discussed, when in fact there are two and it is the lock they are less aware of that is the source of most of the controversy.[/b]
Thu, 2008-06-19 05:21
#43
Frustrated Mess
quote:
But what if the government made owning lockpicks illegal? It's your house, you have a right to enter it, and you don't intend to steal anything, but you couldn't get back in because the tool you need, for this perfectly legal act, has been outlawed.
Imagine you're going to a family reunion and you are asked to bring a salad. For the occasion, you purchase a new, large salad bowl. You get it home, and you make your salad when you learn the law prevents you from using the salad bowl in any kitchen but your own.
Wed, 2009-06-10 13:10
#44
Hmm, I seem to keep coming back here to post Wayne's articles! Anyhow, I think this one is excellent too.
Wed, 2009-06-10 21:42
#45
Spectrum
Sorry I didn't know this thread existed till now. I thought there was a niche free market here that spoke toward the public owning rights to that white space all the while it was being auction off by governments. The same idea toward corporate control and dominance in the market place wasset out by Government to sell off what was free already, and place companies in control of that white space.
I am not sure how copyright is affected other then to follow Google in it's attempts to copy books and place them upon the internet to read. What infringements are to be considered here that we attain the thinking according to what is availably to the public for access given everything else is a large portion of our monthly expenses now.
Sun, 2009-06-14 08:43
#46
Spectrum
Some discussions that were on going during eConsultation.
Approaches to Internet Traffic Management
Thank you for your participation. The consultation is now closed
Thank you for your recent participation in our eConsultation process hosted by Nanos on the topic of ISP Internet traffic management practices. Your comments were greatly appreciated and will be an integral part of the public record for this proceeding.
Some participants have inquired what the Commission plans to do with the comments. Let me assure you that each and every comment has been read and the information provided by participants is being used as part of our ongoing analysis of the topics explored. Furthermore, the transcript of this consultation will be placed on the public record at the following link. Parties preparing materials for our public hearing in July will also have access to these materials, and some have already pointed to specific comments in their submissions.
The inclusion of the eConsultation comments on the public record is an important aspect of ensuring we have a full picture of the sentiments of the Canadian public, and we thank you for your time and effort.
Kindest regards,
Namir Anani
Executive Director, Policy Development and Research, CRTC
Tue, 2009-06-30 21:22
#47
Do Clement and Moore really get it? Just a hunch, but I have my doubts.
Tories Clement and Moore Get It!
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/06/30/ToriesGetIt/?utm_source=daily&ut...
Tue, 2009-06-30 22:58
#48
Spectrum
It seems one can be fooled into thinking that some open dialogue can give an impression of participation, while on the other hand controls in corporate strategic forces dominant, does one think we ever get a internet that is free and accessible? What role should our government play? It is not of what they should play, but of one of, what they have already done.
Good luck.
Tue, 2009-06-30 23:55
#49
I'm dissapointed in Geist here. Clement and Moore mouth a few platitutudes about how great the Internet is and that's enough to declare they "get it"? Odds are their idea of "balance" will be a $10k fine instead of $20k.