There have been several threads today regarding a treaty being discussed in secret talks in South Korea. The treaty in question (more
here and
here) apparently deals with (among other things) international enforcement standards for copyright laws.
The Internet makes all sorts of copyright violations possible. There's no argument that everything from unauthorized copies of Windows (OR Mac!) operating systems, games, movies, books, and music are illicitly downloaded every single day. It may come as a surprise to many that this has
always been the case; there are plenty of other methods apart from download from websites (which make up only part of the whole internet), such as Usenet, IRC, and even chat programs like Yahoo Messenger. Using websites only makes it easier to access.
The point is, digital
anything is easily copied, and that's where the problem lies for copyright holders. No matter what method you use, from key encryption to
the laughable Sony method, it
will be broken. This is an absolute law that has yet to be violated in the consumer market. However, that isn't a problem for those who know how to defeat DRM schemes; it is only a problem for legitimate users.
One recent case in point was the release of Bioshock from 2K Games. Bioshock, at launch, was only able to be installed three times per copy. No, not on three different machines; it was a hard-and-fast limit of three installs
only on the same machine, forever. Naturally, this caused a severe headache for game reviewers, who typically install each game they review on many different machines, each with a different hardware configuration, for testing purposes. After a huge backlash from the gaming community, 2K Games eventually issued a revocation tool, and has now apparently done away with the limit altogether (from my own personal experience). Of course, Bioshock still has to be activated online, which is impossible for anyone without an internet connection, but I digress. Illegitimate users didn't have to deal with
any of that; the only people who were hassled were paying customers.
Now, what does any of that have to do with network neutrality and copyright? Well, there has been much talk of what's 'possible' for an ISP. Certainly, no single ISP- or even any centralized authority- can sniff the entire internet every day. That would require an absurd level of power and storage- a full internet's worth,
daily. Clearly, that's implausible at the least. But what happens if ISPs, in response to this treaty, set up something like this:
Oh,
my. Now, under a plan such as this, content is neatly segregated into "sections" or "plans" of customers who are paying for specific content. Suddenly, all the ISP has to look at is certain
segments of customers. This image represents the death of network neutrality.
With network neutrality in place, the internet is "too big to sniff". All data, regardless of content, is currently treated in the same way by the network itself. The network doesn't
care if it's a YouTube video data stream, a system update, or a .torrent file that violates copyright; it just sends it along. It's just too much information to go trolling for someone who is downloading the new movie "Up", for example. However, if you segregate content as in the above image, you can
target your sniffing to only those users who have paid for access to that "level" of internet content.
Network neutrality is and has ever been the bane of politicians and corporations alike; a simple DU search for "Network neutrality" returns plenty of threads discussing the issue. I think that's what the treaty being discussed in South Korea is really about. The only way the treaty, as it is being revealed today, can possibly be put into practice is if network neutrality dies. I see this as a stealth attempt by politicians and corporations from all over the world to kill off the internet the "soft" way, under cover of copyright law, by necessitating the death of network neutrality.
I could be wrong. I
fervently hope I am wrong. If I'm right, we'll all be paying a lot more for access to individual websites as soon as our ISPs are told the treaty is in effect... and that will kill outright our activism, our access to information, and perhaps even this very website, or Kos, or Salon, or Huffington Post. It really is that serious of a concern.
They can't sniff it
all, but they
can and
will limit your access to the whole thing given half a chance. This international copyright treaty, if it goes through as it is being revealed today, could affect
all of us in the end- not just violators of copyright.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
