Anti-piraterij nog erger dan piraten?

[fert 6565]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Het technisch kat en muis spelletje gaat lekker door , ik denk dat het niet
veel zin heeft om
fake files (die overigens al zonder de nu beoogde schadelijke werkingen op
de netwerken gedeponeerd worden)
te maken omdat er onmiddelijk check software is of zal zijn.  Wel worden
naar verluid door de industrie ook echte muziekfiles
gedeponeerd met in de audio codes die onzichtbaar zijn, zodat altijd te zien
is van welke bron deze afkomstig is
wellicht om alleen inzicht te krijgen in de verkeersstromen en/of om te zien
of een file illegaal is of niet, het adres sniffen en
het is duidelijk wie een illegale kopie bezit (of hij dat nu wel of niet
weet). Ook hier heb ik mijn twijfels over want
het lijkt mij dat hier ook weer snel check software op komt alhoewel dit een
stuk lastiger is. Ik ben ook voor andere opzet
zoals je weet.

mvg , louis de wit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cees Binkhorst" <cees at binkhorst.xs4all.nl>
To: <D66 at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 6:01 PM
Subject: Anti-piraterij nog erger dan piraten?


REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Dat mag dan wel een foutloos programma zijn, dat foutloos blijft inwerken op
alle mogelijke computers met alle mogelijke verschillende
geinstalleerde software.
Overigens zal het niet afdoende blijken te zijn om 'de techneuten' tegen te
houden.

Het middel lijkt me overigens erger dan de kwaal.
Bij wie je moet je melden als je geen muziek download maar files deelt via
Kazaa, Grokster, whatever, en toch 'afgehandeld' wordt door 'het
programma?'
What's next? A program to turn the light out at the White house :).

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html
May 4, 2003
Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy,
are quietly financing the development and testing of software
programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of
people who download pirated music, according to industry executives.

The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which
some experts say have varying degrees of legality, to deter online
theft: from attacking personal Internet connections so as to slow or halt
downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution networks
with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.

The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they
could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being
developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the
executives said.

If employed, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet taken
by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that the
IFPI, an industry group, estimates costs the industry $4.3 billion in sales
worldwide annually. Until now, most of the industry's anti-piracy efforts
have involved filing lawsuits against companies and individuals that
distribute pirated music. Last week, four college students who had been sued
by the industry settled the suits by agreeing to stop operating networks
that swap music and pay $12,000 to $17,500 each.

The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by
spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like KaZaA
and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered legal but has
had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more of a nuisance
than an effective deterrent.

The new measures under development take a more extreme - and antagonistic -
approach, according to executives who have been briefed on
the software programs.

Interest among record executives in using some of these more aggressive
programs has been piqued since a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled
last month that StreamCast Networks, the company that offers Morpheus, and
Grokster, another file-sharing service, were not guilty of copyright
infringement. And last week, the record industry turned a "chat" feature in
popular file-trading software programs to its benefit by sending out
millions of messages telling people: "When you break the law, you risk legal
penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL
MUSIC."

The deployment of this message through the file-sharing network, which the
Recording Industry Association of America said is an education
effort, appears to be legal. But other anti-piracy programs raise legal
issues.

Since the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities - criminal
and civil - are not easily defined. But some tactics are clearly more
problematic than others.

Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program, considered
a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users to
Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download.

A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for a
certain duration - minutes or possibly even hours - risking the
loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays
a warning about downloading pirated music. Another program under
development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated
music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on
the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being
reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.

Other approaches that are being tested include launching an attack on
personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a
person from using a network while attempting to download pirated music or
offer it to others.

"There are a lot of things you can do - some quite nasty," said Marc
Morgenstern, the chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that
receives support from several large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern refused
to identify his clients, citing confidentiality agreements with
them. He also said that his company does not and will not deploy any
programs that run afoul of the law. "Our philosophy is to make downloading
pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without crossing the
line." And while he said "we develop stuff all the time," he was also quick
to add that "at the end of the day, my clients are trying to develop
relationships with these people." Overpeer, with 15 staff members, is the
largest of about a dozen businesses founded to create counterpiracy methods.

The music industry's five "majors" - the Universal Music Group, a unit of
Vivendi Universal; the Warner Music Group, a unit of AOL Time
Warner; Sony Music Entertainment; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann; and EMI - have
all financed the development of counterpiracy programs,
according to executives, but none would discuss the details publicly. Warner
Music issued a statement saying: "We do everything we feel is
appropriate, within the law, in order to protect our copyrights." A
spokeswoman for Universal Music said that the company "is engaging in legal
technical measures."

Whether the record companies decide to unleash a tougher anti-piracy
campaign has created a divide among some music executives concerned
about finding a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating its
music-listening customers. There are also questions about whether
companies could be held liable by individuals who have had their computers
attacked.

"Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a
professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright
issues.
"It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage. The law has
ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's
computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."

Randy Saaf, the president of MediaDefender, another company that receives
support from the record industry to frustrate pirates, told a
congressional hearing last September that his company "has a group of
technologies that could be very effective in combating piracy on peer-to-
peer networks but are not widely used because some customers have told us
that they feel uncomfortable with current ambiguities in computer
hacking laws."

In an interview, he declined to identify those technologies for competitive
reasons. "We steer our customers away from anything invasive," he
said.

Internet service providers are also nervous about anti-piracy programs that
could disrupt their systems. Sarah B. Deutsch, associate general
counsel of Verizon Communications, said she is concerned about any program
that slows down connections. "It could become a problem we
don't know how to deal with," she said. "Any technology that has an effect
on a user's ability to operate their computer or use the network would
be of extreme concern to us. I wouldn't say we're against this completely. I
would just say that we're concerned."

Verizon is already caught in its own battle with the recording industry. A
federal judge ordered Verizon to provide the Recording Industry
Association of America with the identities of customers suspected of making
available hundreds of copyrighted songs. The record companies are
increasingly using techniques to sniff out and collect the electronic
addresses of computers that distribute pirated music.

But the more aggressive approach could also generate a backlash against
individual artists and the music industry. When Madonna released
"spoofed" versions of songs from her new album on music sharing networks to
frustrate pirates, her own Web site was hacked into the next day
and real copies of her album were made available by hackers on her site.

The industry has tried to seek legislative support for aggressive measures.
Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California,
introduced a bill last fall that would have limited the liability of
copyright owners for using tougher technical counterpiracy tactics to
protect
their works online. But the bill was roundly criticized by privacy
advocates. "There was such an immediate attack that you couldn't get a
rational
dialogue going," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry
association. He said that while his organization often briefs recording
companies on legal issues related to what he calls "self help" measures,
"the companies deal with this stuff on their own."

And as for the more extreme approaches, he said, "It is not uncommon for
engineers to think up new programs and code them. There are a lot of
tantalizing ideas out there - some in the gray area and some illegal - but
it doesn't mean they will be used."

Groet,

Cees Binkhorst - cees at binkhorst.xs4all.nl

Thucides (on Secr. Powel's desk): "Of all the manifestations of power,
restraint impresses men the most."

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst
(D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld
alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld
alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op:
http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********