CSC 379 SUM2008:Week 2, Group 4

File Sharing Countermeasures

Even before the days of the fall of Napster, file-sharing peer-to-peer (P2P) networks have been transferring copyrighted material. File-sharing networks stemmed from the need for researchers and programmers to share and collaborate with others. Peer-to-Peer file sharing is now associated with the illegal transferring of copyrighted material that included music, movies, and software.

Most media companies do not have the means to defend against such actions. In response to the huge amount of peer-to-peer activity, companies and services have emerged whose goal is to minimize the amount of copyrighted material. Various countermeasures have been developed by these companies to prevent users from successfully obtaining material from these file-sharing networks.

Example Countermeasure Methods

P2P file sharing can open up potential security holes, increase potential legal liability and consume an excessive amount of bandwidth that cannot be supported by the network.

Juniper NetScreen

Juniper Networks NetScreen-IDP helps the organizations mitigate certain risks associated with P2P applications and to do so with the granularity needed for an effective enterprise deployment.

Juniper Networks IDP combines eight different detection mechanisms into a single product to provide broad attack protection. The methods generally applied by Juniper Networks IDP to detect P2P activity are protocol anomaly and Stateful signature detection. These mechanisms understand many of the communication protocols used by P2P applications and can identify them on the network. Furthermore, IDP can apply granular pattern matches to identify unauthorized types of file transfers. For example, if an organization wants to deny any executables being shared via P2P, Juniper Networks IDP knows exactly where in the application to look for “exe” and prevent that traffic from reaching its destination.

Juniper Networks IDP was designed to prevent unauthorized and malicious traffic by dropping either the triggering packet or the entire connection (session). This information security countermeasure is an extremely effective method of preventing malicious traffic from passing through the protected networks and can be used to prevent unauthorized P2P activity.

It can detect and block things like P2P applications, including BearShare, Gnucleus, Morpheus, Swapper, XoloX, Gnewtellium, Gnutella, Mutella, eMule, eDonkey, Overnet, Qtella, LimeWire, Phex, Kazaa, Napster, and WinMX

University Screening

University screening is the concept that educational campuses should monitor the P2P activity that occurs on their networks. This essentially involves keeping track of their students' internet usage, and determining if copy-righted material is being distributed in an unauthorized manner. If said material is found, then it is the university's responsibility and duty to take the appropriate measures.

The idea is that it is the responsibility of the universities to ensure that piracy of copy-righted material is minimized, because they are the ISP's for the students; since they allow the students to access the internet, they are responsible for what content the students receive. The universities can also be more persuasive, since they can impart punishment upon offenders more quickly, ranging from revocation of internet privileges[1] to legal action taken against offenders.[2] This provides a disincentive for students to engage in pirating activities.

There is controversy surrounding this technique, however. While some universities may monitor their networks anyway to limit illegal activities (such as distributing child pornography), there are claims that the owners of copy-righted material are not satisfied with as much[3]. The owners have lobbied and petitioned for government intervention, thus forcing universities to be legally required to monitor P2P activity. The concern by some is that these owners are attempting to "bully" universities via governmental regulation. Another concern is that the owners demand more and more legal intervention, even though universities may already be complying with their wishes.

The issue of whether or not the owners of copy-righted material are ethically correct in defending their material is beyond the scope of the article, but the primary concern at hand is that the owners are attempting to supersede the universities by instead pursuing direct legal action. Instead of working with the universities, they are attempting to change federal laws to act in their favor, which is underhanded and unethical. In some ways, it is also unnecessary; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides protection to ISP's (which would include universities) from legal action for as long as they meet certain guidelines, one of which is to cease and inhibit illegal file-sharing activity when it is found (Title II, Eligibility for Limitations Generally, page 9).

MediaDefender[4]

MediaDefender is a company with the sole purpose of providing clients with content protection against Peer to Peer networks. Their goal is to stop the illegal sharing of copyrighted content over these file sharing software programs. Clients for this service include music recording companies, movie publishing companies, and software companies[5].

The means by which MediaDefender protects the content of clients vary widely and are greatly debated. Publicly, MediaDefender is said to employ only non-invasive countermeasure to foil users of P2P file-sharing networks. Spoofing and Decoying are the two main ways MediaDefender blocks the sharing of copyrighted content. Decoying involves sending a barrage of fake media files to the P2P network, making it extremely hard for the users of the network to decide which file is the true media or just a fake put up by MediaDefender. Spoofing goes along with Decoying by making the file seem more popular than it actually is. This makes the legitimate files even harder to find.

There is controversy whether MediaDefender has used illegal means to block illegal users. Hackers have supposedly retrieved evidence that MediaDefender has used invasive means of foilings file-sharing users[6]. In addition, it is suspected that they have been involved with Denial-Of-Service attacks on websites that distribute copyrighted content[7].

From an ethical standpoint, it is perfectly legitimate to foil users on a P2P network site in a non-invasive manner. Just as other users are able to post valid but copyrighted material, MediaDefender should be able to post invalid and fake material. However, if MediaDefender takes any means, especially illegal, to prevent copyrighted material from being shared; that is another story. From a consequentialist point of view, this could easily be seen as ethical. The consequentialist would ask, "Would the wrong or illegal act I would commit create a good outcome?". However, from a deontological viewpoint, this would be considered unethical and immoral since the action itself is illegal, regardless of the consequences or purpose.

Whether ethical or unethical, using invasive and illegal means to prevent illegal activity effectively nullifies the act of enforcing laws. It must also be noted that MediaDefender has never been legally convicted of using illegal means to spoof file-sharing activity.

References

Do Not Remove Yet

Many strategies have been used to reduce sharing of copyrighted content on networks. Examine in detail the ethical considerations surrounding at least two of your choosing.

• http://www.juniper.net/solutions/literature/solutionbriefs/351036.pdf
• http://www.mediadefender.com/antipiracy.html
• http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-analysis-riaa-wants-universities-to-do-its-dirty-work.html