Yarggggg! New World Pirates Battle Hollywood

The fact that in 2007, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was among the top 5 most pirated movies is pure coincidence to most people. In fact, it is a sign of the time, reflecting not only the novel popularity of pirates, but also the real-life pirates whose treasure chest is a hard drive full of music, TV shows, and movies.

Media piracy has become an increasingly large problem for consumers and businesses alike. On one side sits powerful companies lobbying for copyright protection. On the other side sits the file-sharer whose life revolves around the internet. Stuck in between the crossfire is the common consumer, who uses a computer for simple tasks and still goes to the movies. While both sides continue to point fingers, the middle-man is forced to ask why this problem persists and whether an armistice is foreseeable.

Everyone knows that stealing is wrong, but there is something about downloading media that feels different. Perhaps it is the fact that downloading is often conveniently called 'sharing'. Maybe it's the fact that there is no tangible product to be clandestinely concealed and snatched – or it's simply too easy to do. Some 'pirates' argue that the unchecked conglomerate greed and exorbitant media prices justify their actions. Regardless, there seems to be no signs of slowing – a trend that the media companies cannot afford to ignore. But how can they fight this ever-growing armada of modern pirates?

Typical of the large media companies, they Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have overlooked and bypassed the user, specifically college students, in trying to solve their problems. The MPAA has been lobbying congress with a bill that would “force colleges to make plans for offering up legal music services to students and implement copyright filters, (even) after the MPAA's own data shows that schools have little to do with the overall problem.” [This type of filtering is similar to the Comcast practices mentioned in my previous post.] Of course, colleges are all for educating students on
copyright issues and the penalties for violation, though they are quite reluctant to use such filtering services.

In 2005, the MPAA conducted a study that found colleges to be the source of over 40% of all movie studio losses due to piracy. This was the original justification for urging congress to make colleges offer legal media services along with implementing filtering procedures. Unfortunately for the studios, the study was found to be quite erroneous, with the actual number around 15%. The MPAA's response was to change their reasoning, and emphasize the importance of filters for saving bandwidth and consequently, money.

Of course, the universities have been skeptical of this change and have remained stalwart in their objection to be forced into filtering the traffic on their own networks. But is there a solution somewhere between forced network filters and rampant files-haring?

Perhaps the movie studios to listen to their enemies, and learn:“Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij from The Pirate Bay(one of the world's largest torrent & filesharing sites) recently did a video interview which resulted in some great quotes. One such quote comes from Fredrik, he suggests that the movie and music industry should set up their own torrent site, and monetize it through advertisements. 'We would be out of business.''he added.” With the record box office booty in 2007, perhaps Hollywood should take a serious look in the mirror and try to reconnect with their inner pirate.

Op Ed: Comcast a Bunch of Hipocrites

At an open FCC net neutrality hearing held at Harvard Law School on February 26, broadband company Comcast shamelessly paid employees to wait in line and fill seats in order to give the illusion of strong support for an already questionable cause. Comcast is desperate to justify what most are calling unreasonable network management, where the company targets and disconnects BitTorrent users, without notice or explanation. Daniel Weitzner, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Decentralized Information Group explained, “These are techniques that hackers would use to deny service to any application on the web.”

Comcast's actions are wrong for a number of reasons: Most importantly, there is a large discrepancy between the company's words and actions - In 2007, Comcast told The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press it would not interfere with users' ability to run file sharing applications over its network, specifically noting BitTorrent. Despite saying this, they have since been caught actively disconnecting BitTorrent users, and have thus incited the FCC's interests into their actions. Users have a right to know just what type of actions their Internet Service Provider(ISP) is using against them, and the information is only beginning to surface.

Secondly, it is completely out of Comcast's jurisdiction to police internet traffic. Competing broadband companies like Verizon and AT&T have already clearly stated they will take no such role in monitoring users for bandwidth usage and content. The philosophy entails letting people fileshare freely, while letting the government takes care of violators. For some reason, Comcast feels compelled to resist the paradigm shift and play the vigiliante.

The unreliability of a network will surely stifle web application innovation, causing developers to take a conservative stance in order to anticipate unknown “network management” effects. In fact, at the hearing they were accused of trying to eliminate “competition by blocking the delivery of rival video-on-demand services over its cable system.” If Comcast remains on the same course, they surely could not advertise as offering the same type of robust service other ISP's do.

Comcast argues that certain network management is needed due to the expensive costs of upgrading a system to handle increased user load. Of course certain management is needed, but what is reasonable? Where is the line drawn? Comcast already has the infrastructure for cable and on-demand services, but they aren't fully utilizing it. Furthermore, where other companies look to expansion to accommodate increased user needs, Comcast disconnects certain users to keep a balanced bandwidth.

Comcast has not yet been forced to change because the situation is almost totally unprecedented, and it carries large implications down the road regarding net-neutrality litigation. The issue emphasizes the importance of having some sort of regulation to set a standard for Internet Service Providers.

The company's actions at the meeting further expose their surreptitious nature. It's not wrong to organize people to rally, but perhaps hiring them to is over line. Comcast's fraudulent representation at the FCC hearing serves as a symbol of their dishonesty towards the general public and internet users alike. Their gestapo style regulation and feigned popularity resemble the tightening grip of a failing despot.

DANCEiSM Leap Year Launch Party