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.'"
Both sides of this story are lying about their intentions. Extra regulation will not make the net more neutral. Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
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.
technical writing / development
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.
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.
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
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.
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
What we have here is an organization that is losing in the distribution game. It used to be that casual piracy wasn't a big deal because it was inconvenient to try and copy a VHS tape. Now, it is super easy to duplicate *and* distribute it over the net.
So, instead of changing their business model where they can return the distribution power back their way *by adapting*, they're trying to inhibit or restrict the convenience of a high speed network. When are these people going to get a clue?
In the book Good To Great, Jim Collins points out one of the fundamental things that great companies have to do: the have to have the courage to face reality. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it will be for them to turn things around. Some may say it's too late (I disagree), but they need a real culture change to transform.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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
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.
Show me the locality where that is happening.
Comcast is a monopoly here in Springfield. Cable companies are monopolies about everywhere. Get some competetion and the market can take care of itself, but monopolies must be regulated to prevent them from running roughshod over the people who need the services only they can (and in most cases, their monopoly is protected by law) provide.
Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.
Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
"Presently there's a conflict going on with regard to how the internet is managed. Service providers are overwhelmed with the level of traffic they receive, and over 80% of that traffic is being generated by less than 20% of their clients. This results in slower connections for the rest of their clients. I support legislation that would allow these providers to manage their services in such a way as to ensure a good experience for all their clients."
That's the trick - not everybody is a filesharer, and not everybody has actually started using the internet in a way that demands the full speed of their connection. Appeal to the clueless majority - tell them that filesharing results in them getting lower speeds (never mind the fact that it's their service provider's responsibility to provide the speed they've promised, or the fact that many of these users aren't likely to notice the difference anyway) and... voila. Public support for throwing a bone to ISPs.
Bow-ties are cool.
If these guys are going to fuck with our internet and our culture, let's start fucking back. Which porn sites are they signed up on, preferred escort services, dealers, pimps, etc. Turn over their biggest rocks and expose the filth and muck to the light of day. Let the story change from "Why we need to destroy the net" to "Gee, honey, I didn't mean for you to find out about that tranny fetish of mine."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
You're right though, remove the regulation, remove the monopoly. Remove the regulation that allows for easements for public utilities, and providers won't be able to pull their wires over or under non-subscribers' land.
You must have slept through the whole P2P block attack and congressional response. Bandwith is worthless if it can't be used the way you want.
The Collaps of At Home and DSL providers that has lead to the sad current state also saw a decrease in bandwith. The entertainment and telco dominated companies immediately established caps and port blocks.
That pushes the trend you are looking for back about nine years. In that time you have gotten some very minor improvements that far outweigh the restrictions put in place. The US has sank to 26th place in the world for network availability and international watchdogs rate the US as a chronic surveillance state.
"Light regulation" has provided the worst of all worlds. Both real regulation and real freedom would have provided fiber to the house by now, as it has elsewhere. Fake regulation has given you fake bandwith that mostly works to put money into MAFIAA pockets. Look for fake regulations to give you all of the freedom of broadcast TV in the near future.
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.
As reported right here on slashdot, John McCain does not support net neutrality. In case you hadn't noticed, there was a pretty big flap a couple weeks ago over a New York Times story reporting on McCain doing favors for telecom lobbyists (and possibly sleeping with one of them (talk about being in bed with special interests), although that part seems fairly dubious). Neither, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, does Hillary Clinton support net neutrality. Obama is the only remaining candidate who favors it. And I do believe he is quite sincere about it, and takes his technology platform pretty seriously. Evidence can be found in the emphasis his campaign puts on his successful bill to promote transparency by making earmark information publicly accessible on the Internet and in Larry Lessig's association with the campaign. It would be really novel to have a federal government that actually supported some of our interests instead of trying to fuck us over at every turn...