Slashdot Mirror


Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses

proudhawk writes "The LA Times is reporting that the MPAA's Dan Glickman has taken another swipe against net neutrality at his recent ShoWest appearance. 'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy. That's what some studio lobbyists have been telling lawmakers, too, in their efforts to derail neutrality legislation. And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.'"

14 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. DRM failed, so change strategy by athloi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM has failed because it annoyed publishers as much as pirates, if not more.

    The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

    They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.

    This is more likely to succeed. Although most Slashdot readers know how bad connectivity options are in the USA, very few people who limit themselves to YouTube and e-mail have any idea.

    They won't notice if they get low bandwidth caps, but they'll shriek when their kids run up the bill for $500 of overage.

    And of course, a bill that large warrants an investigation by the ISP.

    1. Re:DRM failed, so change strategy by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

      They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.


      And as a free bonus, it means that only THEY will be able to afford to do the digital music thing. Bye bye Indy Digital Music Labels, bye bye Indy Internet Radio, bye bye Radiohead-style "Download it and pay us directly what you want", etc.

      Brilliant. Dirty as all getout, but brilliant.

    2. Re:DRM failed, so change strategy by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.

      Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.

      When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.

      The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.

      The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.

  2. Re:that may be true, but... by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it.

  3. Re:FUD begets FUD by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah yes, so that when Comcast cuts a deal with Yahoo and slows your connection down to 56k, and they're the only high speed provider in your area, you'll feel so much better that the government isn't attempting to protect consumers.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Levels the playing field by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup. The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor. The RIAA/MPAA wants to return to the good old days of one-directional pipes. A smart network is the first requirement for this. Everything else is secondary. I hope the current organizations die out before they can push this through.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  5. MPAA Argues *For* Net Neutrality by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the crooked abusers of both networks and the law are demanding Net Blackmail be allowed to further their enterprise, they are evidence that we need Net Neutrality to protect us from invading our privacy and hijacking our free speech.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  6. The internet is not all about the *AA's content .. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I realize that some of the traffic on the internet is actually illegal copies of their stuff. However, it's not my traffic, and it isn't the majority of people's traffic.

    But, some of the traffic on the roads is probably carrying illegal drugs and what have you. In the real world, we wouldn't accept widespread intrusive checking of the contents of our vehicles to try to stop that kind of stuff. I see no reason why we should accept it online.

    The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way.

    Hopefully, before long someone will firmly remind ISPs that if they want common carrier status to remain in effect, they must act like they're a transport mechanism. You're either safely responsible for none of it, or you're responsible for policing all of it.

    Sadly, I fear they may get what they want because the lawmakers are far too beholden to the lobbyists and don't understand the actual issues surrounding technology.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy

    It's not the ISP's job to prevent copyright infringement, nor should it be.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advantage by inTheLoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's funny how companies that benefit from past and present public servitude and spectrum exclusive franchises only complain about regulation that requires them to live up to obligations they accepted to gain advantages. Ask them about open spectrum and public servitude and you will see some interesting changes in skin tone.

    The MPAA, of course, is an enemy of all kinds of freedom. They enjoy government protection in the form of patents, copyright and cable regulations. Exclusivity is not about the promotion of excellence, as anyone can see by watching the high grossing films of last year's best year ever for the MPAA, it's about locking others out. Network and software freedom will destroy their ability to lock competition out. Cost of production has vastly declined in the last 20 years. You have to ask yourself why there's only one or two film companies begging for yet more government protection.

    --
    No calls now, I'm ...
  9. USPS by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we're at it, maybe we should make changes to the US Postal Service as well. I bet there are all kinds of shady documents, products, letters, checks, etc sent through the mail everyday. I mean, friends could be sending each other burned CDs or DVDs!!! USPS should read everything sent by everyone - just in case!

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  10. Re:Corrupt organisation... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This problem of the movie industry trying to stop the evolution of new technology has been occurring not only during the internet age. The advent of home-recordings was one, the television another. They seem to forget that they can't succeed by rejecting new technology - they must embrace it and not try to inject peculiar provisions.

    At the moment the MPAA, RIAA and similar organizations are alienating themselves from their customer base, which just means that the potential customers will continue to select different sources just to keep away from them.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  11. Re:FUD begets FUD by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We aren't trying to grant the government to be responsible for protecting us...we are trying to get the government to bitch-slap misbehaving monopolies because we as individual citizens don't have the money or the realistic possibility of legal avenues to make the changes ourselves.

    I'm all for keeping the government out of our daily lives, but there are instances where government intervention is necessary. Or do you have millions of dollars, top-notch lawyers, and the legal ability at your disposal to slap the likes of Comcast in the face hard enough that they stop bullying everyone else on the playground?

  12. Re:FUD begets FUD by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
    The idea of our government is that it's of, by and for the people. Removing the power of government to regulate the internet is giving away our own power to make sure the internet serves us instead of the other way around.

    I'm ashamed to see so many otherwise bright and technologically sophisticated people so misguided on this issue of Net Neutrality. We've got a small window of opportunity to save the internet as a tool of social benefit instead of just another shopping mall. Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

    We are currently seeing the social benefits of having a public medium for information that is not filtered by the Princes of Commerce. Believe me, those same Princes are desperate to destroy that public medium as fast as possible, because it threatens their hegemony.

    Please, if you don't see the importance of Net Neutrality right now, take a little time and look the matter over again. Once a free (as in speech) and open (as in doors) internet is gone, there will be no getting it back. In fact, it's only by accident that we ever had a free internet to begin with, and the rich and powerful are scrambling to lock it down ASAP.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.