Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Belgian ISP Forced To Block P2P Traffic

Posted by kdawson on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:17 AM
from the it-could-happen-here dept.
An anonymous reader lets us know of developments in a case in Belgium that has been under litigation since 2004. The Belgian copyright watchdog SABAM has forced an ISP to begin filtering P2P traffic (PDF). According to the PDF on the SABAM site: "The Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM) has just won an important legal battle within the context of the dispute that opposes it to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Tiscali, which has become Scarlet Extended Ltd. In its sentence of June 29, 2007, the Court of First Instance of Brussels is demanding from the access provider that it adopts one of the technical measures put forward by the expert in order to prevent Internet users from illegally downloading SABAM's musical repertoire via P2P software." The rumor is that Scarlet will be forced to deploy the same software as MySpace uses (Audible Magic) to filter illegal P2P traffic from the legal.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by OlivierB (709839) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:21AM (#19754453)
    For Relakks.com to start marketing their services to these ISP customers.

    FYI, here's what Relakks does:
    "- You'll exchange the IP-number you get from your ISP to an anonymous IP-number .
    - You get a safe/encrypted connection between your computer and the Internet. "

    How could the ISP filter or block VPN traffic without annoying the rest of the professionals who rely on corporate VPN access?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How could the ISP filter or block VPN traffic without annoying the rest of the professionals who rely on corporate VPN access?

      Unfortunately some ISPs throttle all encrypted traffic and will continue to do so, unless customers start leaving in droves.
    • by dAzED1 (33635) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:30AM (#19754577) Homepage Journal
      How could the ISP filter or block VPN traffic without annoying the rest of the professionals who rely on corporate VPN access?

      They don't need to. They just need to block traffic to Relakks, then all other legit traffic can continue.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        ou are right but to that one could reply that:
        - There is no evidence that Relakks customers are involved in illegal activities (unlike P2P whose unecnrypted packets you can monitor). I for instance happen to use Relakks more for Hotspot access than anything else.

        - What happens if Relakks has some sort of DynDns VPN server address? The ISP could not reference this address in their DNS servers but then agin those subscribing to Relakks are savy enough to use OpenDNS as well.

        What happens then?
        FYI, countries li
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          trust me, it wouldn't be difficult. If you can find it easily, then they can block it easily. Matters not if you use a different name service.
      • Then route it through TOR.

        There is no such thing as a reliable blocker based on IPs.
    • by monk.e.boy (1077985) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:34AM (#19754607) Homepage

      Hey, lets all burn 3 CDs of mp3s each, and post it to random Belgans.

      FILTER THAT, FUCK-WITS

      :-P

      monk.e.boy

    • $5/month or $50/12-month period

      Wasn't the whole point of the P2P stuff this court ruling targets that people don't want to pay for the content?

      ( Yes, I know.. "people are willing to pay for the content, but not as much as the copyright holders are asking" ..not sure how that became an excuse for "so I'll just get it cheaper illicitly" instead of "so I'll just wait 2 months and pick it up out of the bargain bin", but alright. )
      • They still get my money if I wait until it's in the bargain bin. I want to make sure that doesn't happen.
    • By only blocking VPN traffic that goes outside the country for anyone that has a residential account. Most people that would need to access a VPN outside the country would need to do so from the company that they were visiting, or access from a hotel. I am sure that companies large enough to have international visitors and hotels could set up an unfiltered line. I am not in favor of this action, just given some prior thought about how this wonderful loophole was going to be eventually closed.
      • you assume that my employers VPN servers are based in the same country as I am. In any multinational company, they will have a central VPN server, and it sure as hell won't be in Belgium. What if I am a small company in Belgium and I oustource all my hosting to a company in the UK? Your solution doesn't work.
  • Just encrypt? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dintech (998802) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:21AM (#19754459)
    Is it just me or is this trivial to circumvent by encrypting traffic?
    • It's not just you.
    • Re:Just encrypt? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:16AM (#19755195)
      The deep packet inspection boxes that ISPs buy can thoroughly block encrypted Bittorrent traffic because it examines the "pattern" of connections (BIttorrent's are unique), not the actual content.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        But which is more expensive: the deep-inspection boxen, or the amount of bandwidth being used by encrypted BitTorrent? I would probably guess the inspection box is, but that's just me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        From the summary:

        The rumor is that Scarlet will be forced to deploy the same software as MySpace uses (Audible Magic [CC]) to filter illegal P2P traffic from the legal.

        I don't know how the mentioned software works, but if they are going to distinguish between legal and illegal P2P traffic, they will have to analyse the content. If that's the case, I think encrypted content can only be blocked by employing a whitelist containing fingerprints of legal content.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:23AM (#19754479)
    Aw, Belgium, man! Belgium!
  • by Jaaay (1124197) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:24AM (#19754485)
    It'll be interesting if they'll be able to sue for damages once P2P customers take their buisness elsewhere since this is being selective applied to them and not their competitors for now. Note that this is for a specific ISP so it's really making them uncompetitive. If it were applied to all ISPs then it wouldn't make a difference for the company but if their the odd one out you'd imagine they'll lose a lot of customers since in the reality of this situation a lot of people like to spend all day downloading stuff. Legally if this was applied it should be in a law that affects all isps to keep the market fair. Whether any law banning P2P which has legitimate users also is good in the first place is another question.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      All the Belgian wow players are going to be pissed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        They are pissed as is already. AFAIK Belgian congestion levels due to P2P are one of the worst in Europe at the moment. So funnily enough this is likely to receive support from a large portion of the paying customers.
  • by bunburyist (664958) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:25AM (#19754499)
    I think that our Belgian friends could simply bypass this using protocol encryption for bitorrent. Since bittorrent can work on any port, portblocking filters are useless. Packet sniffers would have a tough time detecting encrypted traffic. The major bittorrent clients all support protocol encryption. For a guide on how to get it working with your client check out:
    TorrentFreak's guide to protocol encrpytion [torrentfreak.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The traffic can be identified with some accuracy, but you still can't read the content. And if you can't read the content you can't do acoustic fingerprinting on the media files, which is what they've been ordered to do.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The ISP wouldn't necessarily be in trouble. They'd just have to adjust their TOS to say "No encrypted P2P traffic allowed" and call upon their contract agreement with the client saying that the TOS can change at any time, and that the user is free to cancel their service if they disagree with the new TOS. After that, they can just block it - legitimate or not.

          Yes, that may lose them some customers - probably less than the current order will cost them.. and even that will be puny in comparison to the total
          • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:26AM (#19755343)
            It's one thing to outlaw something. It's another to enforce it. Or, in this case, it's easy to say "no P2P encryption allowed". But what is "P2P traffic"? A packet, having a valid HTTP header, trying to connect to a machine on port 0x50 is, usually, a request to a HTTP Server. It's easy, though, to use HTTP as a wrapper for any kind of traffic. Dunno if providers would be that happy about that, considering the incredible overhead.

            What about encrypted traffic? How can you tell it's "P2P traffic"? How about traffic from multiplayer games that uses a completely alien packet configuration that doesn't fit any "standard" mold because the company making the game had to design their own packet format on top of TCP/UDP? How do you discriminate between "good" and "bad" packets?

            You can't outlaw encryption. You'd get into a serious fight with banks that way (and, trust me, you DO NOT want a fight with a bank). You can't outlaw connecting on "nonstandard" ports, that would open another can of worms you do not want to touch.

            So please enlighten me how you'd like to enforce the "no encrypted P2P" rule.
            • by nevali (942731) on Thursday July 05 2007, @01:55PM (#19757245) Homepage
              What the hell do you think SSL is?

              No ISP would be plain retarded enough to block all encrypted traffic, on the grounds that it takes away a big reason for people to use the Internet (and thus their service) in the first place: buying stuff online.

              (Christ, I had to give up mod points to point this out)

  • Legal VS Illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:25AM (#19754501)
    According to SABAM, if all Belgian Internet access providers would adopt the technical measures proposed by the expert so that P2P software could no longer be used for exchanging copyright works, this would put an end to the illegal traffic as Belgium is concerned.

    But what about the LEGAL P2P traffic, like Linux Distros and patches for various apps and games that are out there, as well as artists who promote and encourage the sharing of their works?

    I hope that this isn't dragged over here to the States by the RIAA or MPAA.
    • But what about the LEGAL P2P traffic, [snip]
      RTFblurb

      The rumor is that Scarlet will be forced to deploy the same software as MySpace uses (Audible Magic [CC]) to filter illegal P2P traffic from the legal.
    • Re:Legal VS Illegal (Score:4, Informative)

      by guruevi (827432) <[evi] [at] [smokingcube.be]> on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:32AM (#19755425) Homepage
      Well, as you know, the RIAA is trying to force ISP's and universities to use the same exact appliance (Audible Magic) to block P2P traffic. If you work at a university and get to know this appliance, basically all it is is a very expensive firewall and as their website also declares, it blocks all unencrypted P2P traffic, doesn't differentiate between 'legal' or 'illegal' use.

      It wouldn't surprise me if Audible Magic is owned or otherwise affiliated to people within the RIAA and it's offshoot organizations.

  • I get the impression an SSL standard for packet encryption is going to get put together for torrent fairly soon...

    Either that or a couple of the bigger ones are going to get updates/patches/plugings so when sharing with the same client they will be encrypted...
  • by Bullfish (858648) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:26AM (#19754519)
    That the "experts" think methods like these (filtering) work when it comes to stopping and slowing piracy when history shows that they do not. In fact, pretty much any shutdown/slowdown ever achieved created or accelerated development of newer, stealthier, more robust methods of piracy and distribution. At best it seems a scam to sell filtering software.
    • Another somebody gets paid for implementing a technology that definitely does not offer any real solution to the piracy problem and probably makes life for the law-abiding end-user a little more difficult.

      Just like those fantastic copy-protected CDs that were so safe that pirates managed to copy them instantly, while many CD players failed to read them (not to mention the reduction in sound quality)!

      Instead of paying all these experts to come up with the solution, maybe prices for digital products shoul

      • Re:Creates "Jobs" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:19PM (#19756041) Homepage
        This is the problem with the Music/Movie companies. They want to maximize their profits. So they ran their numbers through some computer, and discovered that movies should cost $X and that CDs should cost $Y. These prices have nothing to do with the cost of producing the CD/DVD, because the cost of those is effectively $0. Instead they try to figure out how many people they can get to buy the product at a certain price in order to make the highest profit. However, these calculations were done a long time ago, long before P2P was widespread. People were willing to pay more for stuff when there was no other way to get it. However, now that people have another way to get it, legal or otherwise, they should lower their prices in order to compete with piracy. Piracy shouldn't be an issue. If you like a song, it should be so cheap to buy it that you won't even think twice and will just get it right away. Currently, people have to look at the price, think it over, leave the store, and then maybe go back to the store (virtual or brink and mortar) and make a conscious descision to purchase music. However, if they made CDs $5, and DVDs similar, and downloaded songs around 10-25 cents, people wouldn't even think about whether or not they should buy it, or if it was worth pirating, they would just pay for it.
      • I believe that piracy itself should be viewed as crime (because it's not right now) and the notion of piracy being a very bad thing should be inculcated right from school

        The enforcement of a law is difficult because the majority of disagree with it and people disobey it. Do you:

        1. Change the law to be in line with the majority view.
        2. Brainwash kids so that the next generation will agree with it.

        I assume your point was the though the law says breach of copyright is a crime, most people do not feel that it i

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:20PM (#19756065)
        When you now add suggesting to have kids turn in their parents for filesharing, I'm going to invoke good ol' Godwin...

        What you want is to turn our education around by pretty much 180 degrees. Remember elementary school? When you were told that you should "share" what you got with others, that it's more fun to play together instead of alone? That giving is more fun than receiving?

        Now you want to turn it around? Don't we have enough greedy, selfish bastards already?

        People need to understand laws to heed them. You can see that every day. "Don't kill" is easy. And understandable, hey, I don't want to be killed! So prolly the next guy doesn't enjoy it either. On the other hand, the program I wrote to solve my problem, do I care if someone else uses it? Nah. I still got it, it ain't like I can't use it anymore just 'cause he does too. Hey, I remember my elementary time, and I like sharing that program with him!

        Make copyright laws understandable, and give people a reason to heed them. Current copyright is completely out of whack, it's (translated quote from a lawyer) "too complicated for use, but formidable for abuse". It's true. We actually have conflicting parts in our copyright laws, which is partly due to it getting patched more often than the average MS OS.

        And give people a reason to heed it. If a law is pointing against me without offering me any benefits, my will to heed it is close to zero. Unless you can enforce it by the very root of the word enforce, i.e. with brute force, people will not care about the law. A law against killing limits me (I can't kill freely at will), but also protects me (neither can someone just pull his gun on the road and kill me without impunity). Same for stealing. Which incidentally is also heeded less by people who don't have jack. Could be coincidence, and probably is...

        You will notice, though, that people were more willing to heed copyright when it was still based on "equal protection", i.e. when copyright not only limited the customer but also gave him some rights. Since those rights are eroding away, so is the willingness to heed the law.

        Make fair laws, and people will heed them. Make unfair laws, and people will only ponder how to evade them.
  • Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by javilon (99157) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:39AM (#19754673) Homepage
    I will repeat what I say on this cases, and also about censorship and network neutrality issues:

    The only way to assure net neutrality is to encrypt every packet and randomize the ports on all new network protocols. This is true right now for some P2P and skype.
    Given the current European policy on data retention, we should do it even for mail and instant messaging. Of course you should use sftp instead of ftp and ssh instead of telnet, and your SMTP sessions should go encrypted, but that is not enough. We should rewrite every protocol and make it look like IPSEC.

    This way we would avoid the following problems without the need for regulation:

    - Government censorship (the China firewall becomes less efficient)
    - Traffic Shaping (ISPs shouldn't have the right to decide what protocols can you use).
    - Multi tier pricing (the ISP could discriminate by IP, but not by service)
    - Traffic analysis (for example the European Data Retention policy. If all packets look the same it becomes much more difficult)

    A technical solution is always better than a political one.

    In this case, the "expert" wouldn't have suggested the filtering solution if all of the p2p protocols where encrypted, like some bittorrent variants.
    • Re:Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)

      by profplump (309017) <zach@kotlarek.com> on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:52AM (#19754865) Homepage
      Instead of re-writing every protocol to look like IPSEC, couldn't we add a layer to the network stack between the transport layer and the IP layer to encrypt the IP payload? Then we wouldn't have to re-write all our old apps, wouldn't need to implement encryption in every app, and wouldn't need to try to hide the port numbers. If only there were such an IP-layer SECurity service...
  • Usenet and IRC are next, guys. All it takes is one person to show some jackass ignorant lawmaker a pie chart of bandwidth used for piracy compared to bandwidth used for information exchange.

    What is happening to our intertubes?! :'(!
  • by gelfling (6534) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:57AM (#19754917) Homepage Journal
    It's insane that my provider can happily support my P2P traffic, get paid for it then turn around and rat me out all the while being immune from those very same lawsuits. If people want to see changes in the P2P laws then you will have to make the carriers bleed.
  • Bad news (Score:4, Informative)

    by Filip47 (728436) on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:01AM (#19754997)
    This is bad news for us Belgians. We have but 3 major ISP's in the country and Scarlet is one of them. Soon, SABAM could attack the other two. Scarlet was the best choice to start, as it is the smallest of the three.
    • by KevinColyer (883316) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:25PM (#19756131) Homepage
      I am disappointed by SABAM but not surprised. I live in Brussels and we run a small bar that plays live music. It is typical European - i.e. a small venue. We pay SABAM licensing fees for playing general recorded music and for concerts we host. (And a separate fee for our shop next door's right to play music). Now we could only fit a maximum of 50 people in and yet we still pay the same fees clubs fitting in hundreds would.

      When bands come and play their own original music, we have to pay a fee to SABAM for this right...
      What upsets me the most is that as far as we know NONE of the bands who fall into that category have received one Euro cent of royalties from SABAM.

      I (and many others here) are not impressed with this company. Their business seems more akin to racketeering than ensuring royalties are correctly rewarded to the artists who created the works.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I'm not sure how they got the right to ask that, but they can force you to pay. If you throw a (public) party and you play music, you have to pay them too.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:05AM (#19755049)
    No, this isn't the 'p2p' is legal in Canadialand response. It's the "Canadian ISPs do this without being lobbied".

    Rogers Cable throttle _all_ encrypted traffic now, as people were encrypting to get around bittorrent throttling. Your 7Meg line will get about 10KB down on a fully seeded torrent (Linux ISOs or whatever).

    No worries, you'd think, in a nice open market you can just go to the competition, except that there is none. If your local copper is incapabable of decent DSL speeds, chances are Rogers are your Only option for broadband.

    Go the 'free' market.
  • ob (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:15AM (#19755193) Homepage Journal
    I for one welcome our new Belgian [zapatopi.net] overlords.
  • Let's see how SABAM holds up against the Foreign University and College Kids Exchanging Music group (FUCKEM).
  • by holt (86624) on Thursday July 05 2007, @11:52AM (#19755691) Homepage
    Many people have been commenting that acoustic fingerprinting is how ISPs can differentiate between legal and illegal traffic. What I'm confused by, though, is why files that match are automatically determined to be illegal traffic. Are MP3 files I ripped myself from CDs I purchased and still own considered to be illegal? If not, how can an ISP know whether a particular transfer is between me and some random P2P person, or between me and another machine under my control? If the transfer is between two machines I control, is that actually an illegal transfer?

    The problem is that there is no way to know, simply by inspecting packets or analysing traffic flow, whether the users involved have the appropriate licenses to perform the action they're performing.
  • Don't panic yet. (Score:3, Informative)

    by witte (681163) on Thursday July 05 2007, @01:42PM (#19757077)
    This is only the Court of First Instance. Scarlet will appeal, and this may very well drag on for several more years. The decision may be overturned; and I expect it will be.

    What I don't know, IANAL : Is Scarlet already obliged to enforce this ass-hat decision while the case is appealed ?
    If so, as a Scarlet customer I will have to figure out a way to subvert Le Filtre P2P until I find another ISP. Sorry Scarlet ;-(

    Tangentially, it's worth noting that SABAM tries to set a precedent by taking on a small ISP (at the time this case started rolling they were quite small compared to Skynet and Telenet).
    I don't see them trying to pull this shit on Skynet/Belgacom. Odds are they'd get crushed like a puppy trying to stop a bus. (Wishful thinking)
  • by eagl (86459) on Thursday July 05 2007, @02:58PM (#19758085) Journal
    Every business (linux distro producers plus others) that rely on bittorrent as a primary means of distributing their product should join together and sue for anti-competitive practices. If MS can get sued and lose for including a media player in their OS bundle, then certainly a "watchdog group" that forces an ISP to block the primary distribution means of multiple companies can be held liable for lost business.

    The music industry does not live in a digital vacuum and the sooner they (and lawmakers) figure out that they are just one medium-sized piece of the digital landscape, the better. Heck, any company that uses the internet should feel threatened that one industry can block use of the internet across the board, because it's only a matter of time before the precedent set here will be used by some other group to shut off, say, TCP-IP because that's how computers communicate to each other to do something or another that is illegal somewhere.