Internet data caps aren't just good at stopping congestion; they can also be useful tools for curtailing piracy.
That was one of the points made by Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think tank in Washington DC. Castro testified (PDF) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee about the problem of “parasite” websites, saying that usage-based billing and monthly data caps were both good ways to discourage piracy, and that the government shouldn't do anything to stand in their way.
The government should allow "pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy," he wrote, which comes pretty close to suggesting that heavy data use implies piracy and should be limited.
While usage-based billing and data caps are often talked about in terms of their ability to curb congestion, it's rarely suggested that making Internet access more expensive is a positive move for the content industries. But Castro has a whole host of such suggestions, drawn largely verbatim from his 2009 report (PDF) on the subject.
Should the US government actually fund antipiracy research? Sure. Should the US government “enlist” Internet providers to block entire websites? Sure. Should copyright holders suggest to the government which sites should go on the blocklist? Sure. Should ad networks and payment processors be forced to cut ties to such sites, even if those sites are legal in the countries where they operate? Sure.
Castro's original 2009 paper goes further, suggesting that deep packet inspection (DPI) be routinely deployed by ISPs in order to scan subscriber traffic for potential copyright infringements. Sound like wiretapping? Yes, though Castro has a solution if courts do crack down on the practice: "the law should be changed."
After all, "piracy mitigation with DPI deals with a set of issues virtually identical to the largely noncontroversial question of virus detection and mitigation."
If you think that some of these approaches to antipiracy enforcement have problems, Castro knows why; he told Congress yesterday that critics of such ideas "assume that piracy is the bedrock of the Internet economy" and don't want to disrupt it, a statement patently absurd on its face.
(One target of his criticism, the Center for Democracy & Technology, was also at the hearing. CDT's David Sohn opened by describing his support for reducing online infringement and told how, back in 2005, CDT had actually filed complaints against two websites that charged money for access to "legal" P2P music. Reading Sohn's measured, thoughtful testimony (PDF) is a good reminder of why process matters when it comes to IP enforcement.)
Still, several of Castro's ideas made it into last year's COICA Web censorship bill, which will soon return to Congress (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has promised that COICA will pass this year.) Could some of his other ideas—such as asking government to bankroll antipiracy research—make the cut when COICA returns?
reader comments
203