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.'"

Comments

DRM failed, so change strategy

[athloi]

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.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:that may be true, but...

[ajs]

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.

Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advantage

[inTheLoo]

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.

USPS

[JCSoRocks]

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!

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[sm62704]

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