Tag Archive for 'p2p'

The End of P2P Throttling: FCC Slaps Comcast

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced its orders on Comcast, a major high-speed internet provider, to halt their practice of throttling selected peer-to-peer file sharing traffic. The commission voted 3-2 on the said ruling stating that Comcast has been monitoring the contents of their customers’ internet connections and has been blocking traffic, particularly in BitTorrent peer-to-peer networks. The commission claims that such practices are invasive and have significant effects on the rights of internet users.

According to the commission, Comcast uses deep-packet inspection to monitor the contents of the customers’ internet connection, instead of the destination. “In essence, Comcast opens its customers’ mail because it wants to deliver mail not based on the address on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein,” the commission said.

The commission also claims that the effect of Comcast’s throttling is widespread, to the point that they have managed to control the traffic of up to three-quarters of all file sharing connections in some areas.

The Comcast Violation Run-down

080826-comcast

Comcast violates FCC policies on Net Neutrality, forbidding any kind of restrictions on the kinds of equipment, communication, and content allowed on the internet. In particular, Comcast violates the policy on the grounds of discriminating against file sharing traffic.

Comcast admits performing network management practices in allegiance with Sandvine and claims that its actions are in accordance with the law and are reasonably consistent with industry practices. It denies the FCC statement that the company is blocking any file sharing traffic whatsoever. It also asserted that the company does not have anything against peer-to-peer networks, let alone, anything specific against BitTorrent.

Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice said that the company was “gratified that the commission did not find any conduct by Comcast that justified a fine,” still claiming that the company never did meant to throttle internet traffic. Comcast was not asked any monetary sanction but was ordered to completely halt its monitoring practices. The commission gave the company 30 days to fully disclose its throttling methods.

The FCC believes that Comcast’s motive in halting BitTorrent network traffic was profit-oriented. It has to be considered that BitTorrent provides high-quality video downloads accessible to all internet users. Such wide scale video distribution provides a tough competition to Comcast’s own video-on-demand services.

Public Knowledge, a nonprofit digital rights group brought the said complaint to the FCC months before the ruling was announced. Gigi Sohn, president, said that “Comcast’s throttling of legal internet traffic had nothing to do with network management as the company claims.” The group shares the speculation of FCC that the practice was clearly profit-oriented stating that what Comcast did has “everything to do with a big company trying to exert its power over a captive internet market.”

Net Neutrality is a policy adopted by FCC as a result of a hearing done back in 2005. The rules have a mandate to ensure that the internet is “accessible to all consumers.”

The ruling against Comcast was proposed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican and was voted on by Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, both are Democrats. Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor voted against the said ruling.

McDowell believes that the decision has the potential to politicize the internet. “It will be interesting to see how the FCC will handle its newly created power because, as an institution, we are incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds of internet time. Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two to four years the ground rules could change depending on election results,” he said.

What You Should Know About the French Anti-Downloading Pact

Have you ever downloaded materials from P2P (Peer-to-Peer) networks? Maybe you’ve been downloading music, or movies, or documents. Maybe you’ve downloaded works in the public domain, maybe some still under copyright.

If you’re in France, and you’ve been caught 3 times, then it’s three strikes and you’re out.

And when we say out we mean out. You’re losing your internet access.

The background behind the Anti-P2P movement in France

The French Government, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in France, and the local film and music industry has gotten together and drafted up this pact in order to punish ordinary users of the internet like you and me from downloading on P2P networks.

What are P2P networks?

Peer-to-peer file sharing is when people on the internet make files available to be downloaded over the internet. Examples of software programs that let you do this are Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella (like Limewire), and Bittorrent (like Azureus and uTorrent). Let’s say you recorded a school play on a video camcorder. You make a video file (let’s say .avi) and you put this up on YouTube and you also put it up on a P2P network. This means you can share this with others - but in France this could be grounds for you getting dropped from getting access to the world wide web.

How the French punishment system will work

If you’re a P2P user in France, you’ll get the three strikes and you’re out policy like we mentioned. The way this works is that when you are caught downloading what they presume to be illegal content, you will get a warning for that specific illegal download. These warnings will be held in their records. For all intents and purposes, after 3 total downloading infringements, you will lose your internet service.

The cancellation of your internet service follows a procedure. First your internet account is suspended. Then an independent authority, who will be supervised by a judge, will then decide your internet fate.

“We run the risk of witnessing a genuine destruction of culture…The Internet must not become a high-tech Far West, a lawless zone where outlaws can pillage works with abandon or, worse, trade in them in total impunity. And on whose backs? On artists’ backs.” said French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is definitely behind this move and firmly supports the initiative of the French government and corporate agencies that support this pact. John Kennedy, who is head of the IFPI, said about this pact that “this is the single most important initiative to help win the war on online piracy that we have seen so far..President Sarkozy has shown leadership and vision. He has recognized the importance that the creative industries play in contemporary western economies.”

How Musicians Are Causing Copyright Law Controversy

Round One: Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails v. The Music Industry (RIAA).

And so far, the public is supporting the bands.

What’s going on with Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails?

Well Radiohead recently just did a really innovative act, they’ve taken their new album In Rainbows, and placed on their website - and you can pay any price for it! Yes, that price includes absolutely nothing -as in FREE. Yes, a free Radiohead album for download online.

I just found about a survey in the United Kingdom that said that about 33% of all the people who downloaded Radiohead’s album online did pay some money to the band, up to as much as £20 ($40 in United States Dollars). There’s even reports that one downloader purchased the album for £100 ($200 USD)!

Nine Inch Nails (NIN) seems to be following in similar suit. Trent Reznor, head of NIN, has released a statement concerning their freedom from their label contract and future musical direction concerning their Year Zero album:

“Right now nine inch nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to finally be able to have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate.”

What’s the result from what Radiohead did with the free albums stunt? Did they lose money?

Initial reports are that they actually may be making the same amount of money they would have made normally, with following months possibly bringing even more of a profit! Their success with this marketing may find other bands and musicians going independent, possibly bypassing major record labels and self-release their own products. This may be the beginning of a paradigm shift for musicians and the music industry. Most musicians have grown up with the classic notion:

  1. Make some music.
  2. Grind it out for years and years at clubs and bars until a major label finds you.
  3. Sign with the label and give over a majority of your record sale profits to them.
  4. Make your money from concert sales.

This turns this on it’s head. It’s known that concert ticket prices are at an all-time high. This is due to the immense failure of the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) to protect the interests of the artists. The RIAA has the major labels as their main concern. It seems that the time has come for artists to make their own way.

Are all musicians this open-minded?

Well, did you hear about the Metallica vs Napster battle a little while ago? That created huge negative backlash for the band and the repercussions are still around today.

In 2000, Metallica noticed a demo for their song “I Disappear” was floating around the Napster P2P (Peer-to-Peer) file sharing network. After more searching, they found their entire album available for free download on Napster. Metallica filed legal action against Napster, demanded the 300,000 users with Metallica songs be banned, and they also filed legal action against Yale University, University of Southern California, and Indiana University for not doing enough to stop internet file sharing from going on in their campuses. Metallica drummer and co-founder Lars Ulrich then provided a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

My band authored the music which is Napster’s lifeblood. We should decide what happens to it, not Napster — a company with no rights in our recordings, which never invested a penny in Metallica’s music or had anything to do with its creation. The choice has been taken away from us.

What about the users of Napster, the music consumers? It’s like each of them won one of those contests where you get turned loose in a store for five minutes and get to keep everything you can load into your shopping cart. With Napster, though, there’s no time limit and everyone’s a winner-except the artist. Every song by every artist is available for download at no cost and, of course, with no payment to the artist, the songwriter or the copyright holder.

If you’re not fortunate enough to own a computer, there’s only one way to assemble a music collection the equivalent of a Napster user’s: theft. Walk into a record store, grab what you want and walk out. The difference is that the familiar phrase a computer user hears, “File’s done,” is replaced by another familiar phrase-”You’re under arrest.”

This caused huge headaches for the band, as tons of parodies were produced on the internet, making fun of Metallica and “Lar$ Ulrich” and the culmination being named #17 on Blender magazine’s list of “biggest wusses in rock” for its “anti-Napster crusade”.

What gave even more ammunition to the anti-Lars Ulrich crowd is an interview where he admits to not a be a user of computers and the internet:

Everybody always attacks me on it, and I’m totally open and frank, the computer is not something that gets a lot of use in my house. The Internet is not something that I utilize very much as a tool. That’s fair enough. Now certainly I have been accused of being ignorant on certain computer things, that’s all fair enough, but once again it’s sort of sad and pathetic that it becomes the best counter argument that people come up with ‘how can he be against a company like Napster if he’s never been on there?’ It’s like, because, my fucking songs are being traded around, you know, hundreds of thousands of them a day against my free fucking will, against my wishes. I think people lose sight of that with all these arguments, all these analogies, all these things that people try to come up with and be clever.

So what’s next for the music industry?

It’s definitely going to be an interesting time in the world of copyright right and the rights of musicians to protect their creative work and interests. Will more musicians join the Radiohead side and adapt with the times? Or will more musicians join the Metallica side and attack the new wave of internet music distribution?

What is the future of the music industry?