NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to justaguy
Re: The movie thieves will scream Net Neutrality
Is 'lmco.com' really your provider?
»bgp.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS6075
Says that your provider buys transit from AT&T Worldnet Services.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
sad
@net.ae | reply to bigjimc
Hmm sounds like .ir .sa .af .iq .pk .sy .ly .sd .kp
Aren't we trying to defend ourselves from these guys ?
They seem to be winning, instead of us showing them the benefits that Democracy offers, we are 'becoming' them! |
|
Diaboyos
join:2007-08-21
Shreveport, LA
clubs:
·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker  :said by justaguy :
If the system actually works, it will put a dent in the practice of stealing movies - especially if other ISPs follow suit.
And just to reiterate the point.
How will this system work if someone encrypts their data?
I dont even think encryption is needed. Just a simple Zip/rar file is all. Is deep packet inspection not able to see inside compressed files? Or is it the breaking it up into chunks that it can't tell what it would be when it's recombined? |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| I theorize it is simply that when a file is compressed, the data making up that file no longer matches a signature in the blocking device database. Adding a password to your compressed file further hashes the data into obscurity. I would think that characteristic watermarking of copyrighted works embedded into the video frames has a unique signature that can be quantified and checked quickly. It's all for naught however if that watermark data along with all of the other digital frame data making up a single let alone all of the frames in a film are digitally "scrambled" or skewed just enough off center via compression.
Was that a run on sentence?
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7 :If the ISPs are allowed to start filtering traffic for content, we will never have safe or reliable internet communications. I expect that filtering on the basis of propriety of the content would, and should be a problem (banning porn, then what comes next). Is filtering on the basis of legitimacy of the right to distribute the same thing?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA | reply to sad
What about .ae? Aren'they also blocking all forms of VOIP? You're one to talk! |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to mpelle4456
I don't work for any phone, cable or ISP and i think this will be good. Why should i have to pay more at the theater when going to watch a movie because some stupid ass is stealing it at home and i have to make up for the lost profit that is actually deserved. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by hottboiinnc :Why should i have to pay more at the theater when going to watch a movie because some stupid ass is stealing it at home and i have to make up for the lost profit that is actually deserved. Wait...you believe movie ticket prices are such because of piracy?
...I think I have a bridge avaliable for sale. You interested? |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to TKJunkMail
I think it will anger the software pirates even more.
Of course, the people who are legally moving their movies from one computer to another while they're away for work will be thrilled by this. |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| reply to hottboiinnc
Well, you're paying more at the theatre because the movie studios want you to pay more and they can get away with it. They simply use "pirate movies" as an excuse to deflect some of the criticism. I'm not for pirating movies. I do think it is okay to move a copy around from your home computer to your work computer. I think that's fair use. |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four :If this cat and mouse game (or arms race if you prefer to call it that) continues, the logical conclusion is that there is going to be a p2p protocol that is so obfuscated/encrypted, etc. that it is going to be cost prohibitive to implement any piracy filter to stop it. Eh, it depends.
The problem with any arms race is who controls the medium the arms race takes place in.
With nuclear weapons back in the Cold War, you had two main players (and assorted allies), but no one person owned the playing field. Therefore, MAD was possible to maintain.
In the field of copyright infringement, regardless of whether you consder it right or wrong, the ability to own the backbone changes things. Playing strategy games are fine, but if you're the guy that owns the playing board and you can flip ALL the pieces off and take the game home...well, that sort of trumps anyone playing the game. If you're one of the players AND you can do that, the game can radically become unfavorable to the opponent. |
|
lordjim
Premium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL
| Ah yes ... but you also have to consider that those players are also customers. So it's not so simple: AT&T may control a good chunk of the backbone, but customers control their pocketbooks. That changes things too ... because many of those customers can only justify the cost of broadband as a means to download large files (legit or not.) If AT&T is going to seriously try to prevent that, hopefully the studios will be willing to cough up a share of their profits to make up for all the customers AT&T will lose. If I was still an AT&T Broadband customer they'd lose me for sure. AT&T may actually try playing network cop, but when the screaming starts they will probably quietly drop it. Personally, I don't see what they get out of it ... do the media companies have that much pull in the AT&T boardroom? What are they offering AT&T in exchange for this? Gratitude?
Besides, AT&T was never my broadband provider of choice anyway. I was an original @Home customer for years, until @Home folded and AT&T took over and screwed me out of my 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection, and shoveled 1.5 mbit / 25 kbps in my face instead. Then they had the cojones to raise my rates! And now that SBC took them over, I'm even less likely to ever have AT&T/SBC as my ISP. I'd rather move to another area than be dependent upon those bloodsuckers. |
|
lordjim
Premium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL | reply to Doctor Four
I wonder: does a Telco/Cable/Megacorp shill make a sound if no one is listening to them?
He does when the proverbial tree falls on him. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to lordjim
said by lordjim :Besides, AT&T was never my broadband provider of choice anyway. I was an original @Home customer for years, until @Home folded and AT&T took over and screwed me out of my 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection, and shoveled 1.5 mbit / 25 kbps in my face instead. Then they had the cojones to raise my rates! And now that SBC took them over... You skipped a takeover, or three. While ATTBI did take over @Home, ATTBI was also a spin-off from AT&T. Ultimately, Comcast took over ATTBI. And all of that happened well before SBC took over AT&T.
I'm even less likely to ever have AT&T/SBC as my ISP. I'd rather move to another area than be dependent upon those bloodsuckers.
Actually, if you have 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' as your provider (they stopped calling themselves SBC in 2006), you have generally have a number of alternatives, including DSL Extreme and Speakeasy. While AT&T owns the copper to the premises, DSL Extreme and Speakeasy have their own ATM networks from the DSLAM to the Internet, so your service would never touch the ATTIS IP network.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to lordjim
Eh? Those players are the customers? I've never seen it that way; we members of John Q Public are ultimately irrelevant except as cannon fodder on the field of battle. This can best be characterized as a struggle between corporate interests, government law and hegemony, and some few free-wheeling anarchist power groups.
Aside fom all that, most customers of the ISPs are NOT using their broadband for downloads - the main players are corporations using the fat pipes and the average consumer who sends maybe an email or two a day and looks at webpages. Downloading is limited to the narrowly specialized geek population (like what tends to infest the forums here).
AT&T's big issue in it is what they have invested in the media companies. It's rather like what one of my former companies was to Mitsubishi (and by extension, Mitsubishi Bank). Even though the controlling interest of the chain was 4 ladders up, what Mitsubishi wanted my company ended up doing. Look to see who has the big controlling interests in each company and you can follow the money from there. |
|
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four :Precisely why I have him on ignore. Me too, but, I wish ignore worked for autoquotes too. That would be like noise-cancelling headphones for BBR. |
|
