When porn, patents and copyright collide

Angus Kidman01 February 2008, 11:46 AM

Just because the notion of making ISPs responsible for blocking users who swap copyrighted content seems stupid and impractical, that doesn't mean it's unlikely to happen, a leading legal academic has warned.


Linux.conf.au 2008, Melbourne | Just because the notion of making ISPs responsible for blocking users who swap copyrighted content seems stupid and impractical, that doesn't mean it's unlikely to happen, a leading legal academic has warned.

In a presentation at linux.conf.au looking at key legal developments affecting open source software in 2007, Kimberlee Weatherall, senior lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Queensland, singled out the growing push to make service providers responsible for policing online content as a major concern. "At the moment, the favoured target is ISPs," she said. "Don't underestimate the power of this push."

In Australia, any moves to control content are likely to emerge in conjunction with Labor's already-announced-but-yet-to-be-flesh-out plans to make ISPs filter for illegal pornographic content. The argument goes something like this: if you block people from accessing pornography via sites, they'll start exchanging it via peer-to-peer. So to achieve effective blocking, you need to block peer-to-peer as well, and you might as well protect copyrighted content at the same time. "Even if it doesn't actually work, they might well want to put such a law in place," Weatherall said.

At the individual level, copy protection also hadn't entirely disappeared despite the increasing prevalence of DRM-free music. "Reports of DRM's death are of course exaggerated," Weatherall noted. "It is the music industry that we have seen moving away, and the music industry were never that good at DRM anyway. If you show me the movie industry or subscription television going DRM-free, then we can talk about the death of DRM."

Efforts to overturn software patents -- a major concern in the open source community -- were likely to fail, Weatherall suggested. "I don't think the fight is over, but I don't think you're going to kill software patents," she said. "There's a lot of them. Every one cost in the five figures to apply for. The amount of investment is enormous, and that's the sort of thing you have to tear down to tear down software patents."

Weatherall also advised concerned hackers not to become ridiculously obsessed with legal issues. "Don't obsess about law reform and changes in the law. Your best protection during law reform processes is success. if you are coding well then people will go out of their way to protect you."

"Getting the patent reforms that you need takes allies. Allies with money come when you code well. You can help, but don't let it dominate your life."


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Anon:

Quote "if you block people from accessing pornography via sites, they'll start exchanging it via peer-to-peer. So to achieve effective blocking, you need to block peer-to-peer as well,"

And then they will start to use encrypted peer to peer such as i2psnark, i2phex, imule

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Angelyne:

The internet providers will simply block encryption. Rogers in Canada is already doing it.

29 February 2008, 8:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

How can they tell?

How can they tell the difference between encrypted content and just a random stream of bits? Or are they blocking random bitstreams as well?

29 February 2008, 8:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tin:

They probably apply filters on certain ports carrying packets that "look" a specific way. You'd hope that's what they do anyway.

I am pretty solidly opposed to ISP level filters (of any sort). They never apply 100% correctly, and they rarely achieve anything (apart from accidental things).

29 February 2008, 8:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Lindsay:

Surely this type of policing would add a huge cost to ISP's. Tracking software, maintaining band lists. Blocking clients etc. Who pays for this? The ISP? The User? The people making the laws? Peoples use of the Internet would also change. No longer would the 20gig plus plan be needed as there is nothing to download or the downloads cost would spiral making it less attractive. These laws would simply put a lot off ISP's out off business and I would argue they may have a legal argument for compensation for the extra costs involved and loss off business as people go for lower gig plans. It would be most likely that the ISP's would simply not enforce these laws. The biggest thing that the Internet has in its favor is it is dynamic and no Law makers will ever keep up.

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me:

"Locks are only made for honest people" ... Anon

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags