麻豆传媒

鈥淭HIS is the kind of snooping you鈥檇 expect in China, not a modern western democracy. It raises huge questions over privacy invasion and freedom of expression.鈥� So says Andrew Heaney 鈥� who is not, as you might imagine, a civil liberties campaigner, but a senior executive at TalkTalk, one of the UK鈥檚 largest internet service providers. Along with other ISPs, his company faces the prospect of being forced to spy on its customers鈥� downloads for signs of potential copyright infringement.

Heaney鈥檚 disquiet is shared by web campaigners worldwide, as the measures contained in a controversial international copyright treaty (麻豆传媒, 5 July 2008, p 24) are slowly being translated into national laws variously tipped to bridge, distract from or widen the gulf between the entertainment industry鈥檚 desires and those of the millions who share copyrighted material over the internet.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), suggested by the US administration in 2007, aims to redefine global trade rules. The intention is to stem losses from counterfeiting and internet-mediated piracy of content like music and movies.

It will do that by penalising internet service providers and websites that carry, or help people to find, pirated content. ACTA has quickly proved a hit with G8 nations, the European Union, South Korea and Australia, who are all using it as a basis for future national laws.

ACTA is still being worked up in secret by trade delegations from the many nations involved. But a series of leaks to the Wikileaks website reveal that it will require ISPs to become technological sleuths who monitor their customers鈥� internet use to 鈥渄eter unauthorised storage and transmission of infringing content鈥�. Infringers will face a 鈥済raduated response鈥�, with disconnection as the ultimate sanction.

The Obama administration鈥檚 plans to implement ACTA are still hidden in a thicket of non-disclosure agreements with movie studios and record labels. The UK鈥檚 Digital Economy Bill, unveiled in last month, is clearly inspired by ACTA.

The bill stipulates that people who share copyright-infringing content should receive two warnings by post, after which they will face punitive 鈥渢echnical measures鈥�. These may include having their internet connection filtered to block attempts to download copyrighted material, 鈥渢hrottled鈥� to slow downloads to a crawl, or even cut off entirely. Spain, Ireland and France have similar plans.

ISPs are wary of being seen to invade customers鈥� privacy by sifting through their personal data 鈥� and of the potential costs involved 鈥� though Nicholas Lansman, head of the , insists that they oppose illicit file sharing.

鈥淢onitoring every single packet going across our network for the fingerprints of hundreds of copyrighted files will require tens of millions of pounds鈥� worth of computer systems,鈥� Heaney warns. Without that extra computing power, internet access will slow to a crawl.

ISPs would have to scan the contents of every chunk of data, using what is known as 鈥渄eep packet inspection鈥� technology, which is used by China and Iran to monitor and censor internet communications. But even if ISPs install such technology, identifying infringers will be far from straightforward. The EU has ruled that before anyone can be sent a warning letter, rights holders must take an ISP to court to get the name and address of an alleged culprit.

鈥淚SPs would have to scan every chunk of data with the sort of software now used by China and Iran鈥�

There is evidence that such threats will deter some people from illicitly sharing content (see 鈥淐opyright conundrum鈥�). Others, though, will simply seek ways of carrying on regardless.

Freeloading on an unsuspecting neighbour鈥檚 Wi-Fi connection is one option 鈥� and is possible even if the connection is secured. YouTube carries videos on how to use free software to 鈥渟niff鈥� the passwords of protected connections. The ease with which people can 鈥渂orrow鈥� Wi-Fi in this way undermines the assumption that the owner of a connection can be blamed for everything downloaded by it. 鈥淭he government knows there is a wireless hijacking risk but they haven鈥檛 proposed a process by which people can be assumed innocent until proven guilty,鈥� says Heaney.

The mobile broadband connections provided via cellphones or computer USB sticks offer another loophole to the disconnected. Mobile providers do not assign IP addresses to users as fixed line providers do, so it鈥檚 not possible to track file sharing to individuals.

These problems are exacerbated by changes in sharing technology. BitTorrent, the most popular file-sharing protocol, used to depend on central websites to host 鈥渢rackers鈥� 鈥� small files that tell software where to find particular files. The Pirate Bay site in Sweden was the most popular tracker host, but it recently shut down after a refinement to the BitTorrent protocol allowed tracking tasks to be shared out among users.

With the disappearance of tracker hosts, ACTA has lost one of its main targets, although rights holders can still track alleged infringers, says Danny O鈥橞rien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Investigators can join a network and spy on its users from the inside, he says.

Heaney notes that software used to record music from legitimate internet streaming services, and that can automatically label all tracks in a handy library, is impossible to detect. Meanwhile, O鈥橞rien predicts offline sharing will become more common, as ultra-high-capacity hard drives get cheaper. By this time next year a terabyte of storage 鈥� enough for more than 1000 movies 鈥� is expected to cost as little as $50.

Public attitudes and the nature of digital information mean that large numbers of people will continue to breach copyright, O鈥橞rien says. 鈥淭he fact they can do it so casually is a side-effect of how easy it is to copy digital data, and how difficult it is to stop that. That ease of copying isn鈥檛 going to go away.鈥�