Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday April 20, 2009 @08:11AM from the wishing-for-transparency-in-government dept.

Narcissus writes to tell us that the European Parliament is planning a vote in the Industry, Transport, Energy (ITRE) committee that could reintroduce amendment 138 (currently amendment 46) which deals with safeguards to user rights on the internet and graduated response schemes. There are several online campaigns trying to drive awareness and action already but there is limited time to act. "The Council may propose a compromise version of amendment 138/46 that is completely neutralized, or that may even become the opposite of the original by allowing the 'three strikes' scheme instead of preventing it. According to the latest negotiations, am.138/46 wouldn't anymore be an article (that must be transposed by Member States in their law) but a mere recital that has just indicative value. It is urgent to contact the members of the ITRE committee to advise them to reject compromise with the Council that failed to respect the intent of the original amendment. The best would be once again to approve the amendment."

147 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

maybe, maybe not by AliasMarlowe · 2009-04-20 08:13 · Score: 0

So they may do something, or they may do something else, or even the opposite. Call back later.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:maybe, maybe not by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Call back later? Wrong answer. Once the amendment's passed, it's too late to call your representative. We Americans have discovered this from personal experience wherein today's proposal suddenly passes the Congress tomorrow, and now we're stuck with the law. Too late to whine after it's a done deal.
  NOW is the time to call your reps.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
2. Re:maybe, maybe not by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes. The vote hasn't happened yet.
  Generally speaking its best to raise awareness of an important vote before it happens, so that you can contact your representatives and make it clear what you expect them to do. You know, so that your representatives actually represent you. Believe it or not democracy doesn't have to happen with elected officials doing what they want while you mutter under your breath, you are allowed as a citizen to actually participate in the process by making your opinions clear to those people who make the vote.
3. Re:maybe, maybe not by Shark · 2009-04-20 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And if they don't get what they initially wanted, they'll try another law, and if that doesn't go through, they'll try another law... Until they finally manage to come up with the perfect timing when nobody is paying attention and it goes through.
  That or they'll just declare that it's in effect, they can get away with that more and more these days. It's not like voting them out would change anything.
  
  --
  Mind the frickin' laser...
4. Re:maybe, maybe not by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 09:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For all the Dutch people here (part of the EU), mail this to the NOS News at nosbinnenland@nos.nl to send your press tips and raise awareness.
  The NOS news has been reporting on censorship last week with that local newspaper... I am sure some of you will remember, so they will express interest in this too.
  Hint at the Australian censorship as to why 'child-porn' blocking went instantly into censorship of Wikileaks and Wikipedia among other legitimate websites. You can alos find that block-list on Wikileaks.
  If more people than just me tip them about it via email then I am sure they will air it tommorow!
  Don't think that some one else will already do that beauce usualy no-one does because they think "ah a lot of people will read this so I don't have to"!
  
  --
  Here be signatures
5. Re:maybe, maybe not by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, where is the cDc when you need them... do these guys/galls actually exist anyway?
  
  --
  Here be signatures
6. Re:maybe, maybe not by lamapper · 2009-04-20 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  And if they don't get what they initially wanted, they'll try another law, and if that doesn't go through, they'll try another law... Until they finally manage to come up with the perfect timing when nobody is paying attention and it goes through.
  Basically how any minority party and/or group gets stuff passed that the majority of citizens do not want.
  Of course with each new proposal, they tweak it a little bit each time, often wording the proposal to generate more confusion, as they know that they can NOT get their agenda passed if they speak the honest, plain spoken, truth. (Proposal FUD, could be monitored and used against both parties, and should be)
  While I agree with your post, I do not agree that it is hopeless either. No you did not state that it was either, but I read too many posts that tend to imply that people may as well be apathetic as they can not change things.
  We can change things for the better, we are changing things for the better. Granted its slower then we might like and both political parties are busy fighting the majority of us that want a great country with strong economics and desire the ability to raise a family without working so much you never see your family. Thus the results of the race to the bottom in corporation salaries thanks to the owners of the Federal Reserve dictating policy around the Globe.
  They successfully made their money grab with both the Republican and Democratic assistance. The majority of Americans were against the bailouts, but we were fed so much FUD about how the failures would make it worse for all of us. That even we became apathetic in the end and allowed it to occur. Shame on all of us.
  Add to the list the rival party using a grass roots movement that is factually non partisan and adopting it only long enough to attack the rival party with it, then quickly dropping the issue as they do NOT want it passed either. (recent examples: FairTaxâ and TEA Parties
  
  The FairTax has been held up in committee and prevented from coming to a floor vote since 1996. Yes for over a decade, your politicians have prevented this from coming to a vote. Why, because passage while bringing in more revenue then the current system, will limit the games they can play with our tax dollars. They want nothing to do with anything that will restrain their spending and consuming of our tax dollars. This comment applies to both the Republicans and the Democrats.
  Its telling that any elected official, other than the Presidential candidate specifically, that runs against the FairTax loses. Because at a grass roots non partisan level it just makes sense and we the majority of the people of the US want it. Duh.
  Do NOT give up, you can help to change the future for the better!
  Basically both parties are a disgrace, playing politics when Americans are hurting, you are both pathetic.
  I will forever remain an Independent minded American that believes the founding fathers were much smarter than any of us are today.
  Most, not all, of todays politicians look for ways to divide, spread FUD and do anything they can to create apathy so they can pass their minority views and opinions into laws that can be inflicted on the majority of us.
  We must rise above their petty party politics. We must find ways to work together, even in the face of their obvious attempts to divide us, only then can the majority of Americans fix the system.
  Its definitely broken as both parties want it to be.
  
  --
  Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
7. Re:maybe, maybe not by Shark · 2009-04-23 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  The encouraging thing is that we seem to be part of the same 'movement'. People really are waking up nowadays... And paying attention. Keep up the good fight.
  
  --
  Mind the frickin' laser...
Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as carriers can set their own policies for traffic carried across networks that they own, Net Neutrality is a dead topic.
Free Enterprise dictates that the carriers have the right to price services according to market demand. If your carrier starts adopting tiered pricing or starts prioritizing your traffic in ways that it sees fit, then let your feet do the walking to another carrier.
Free Markets do eventually work their way around to providing the services people want for the price they're willing to pay.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:Give it Up! by notarockstar1979 · 2009-04-20 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Voting with your feet assumes that the market is healthy enough to have other carriers that don't practice the exact same thing you're trying to get away from. I'm not in Europe, so the outcome of this does not DIRECTLY affect me. I just like playing devil's advocate some days.
2. Re:Give it Up! by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no. Do those networks cross land that they own?
3. Re:Give it Up! by damburger · 2009-04-20 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  The rational equilibrium model of the free market fundamentalists has gone tits up. Move on, and wise up. Collusion, misinformation, and group think are quite capable of doing for the IT sector what they have done for the financial sector.
  There needs to be citizen participation in both politics and economics. Economies are not worthwhile aims in themselves, they are merely tools we use to coordinate society - whenever they don't work for people, we should seek to change them.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
4. Re:Give it Up! by DomNF15 · 2009-04-20 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be enough competition for prices to remain competitive and affordable. In my area, the only broadband game in town is the cable company or Verizon, not much in the way of competition there, especially if they got together and decided they'll both raise prices.
5. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have at least 3 hard-wired choices to my home, both high speed. There's at least 4 3G wireless carriers I can deal with so I think I do have some choice at least where I'm at, so YMMV. I do agree that there needs to be a healthy market though but why then do we in the US give monopolies to companies that just run cables to your house or buy a set of frequencies? To give them incentives to build out the infrastructure. I believe that that system needs to change a bit and only allow them full monopoly power over that investment for a certain period of time.
  If you look at Time Warner's recent "Tiered" evaluation flop you can see that people can and do influence these decisions as well.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
6. Re:Give it Up! by Hognoxious · 2009-04-20 08:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Everyone in Belgium has three choices too. They're Belgacom, Belgacom in disguise and Belgacom in a different disguise.
  This is completely illegal under EU law, which is made less than ten minutes walk from Belgacom's HQ.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
7. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I have Cable, Fiber and Twisted Pair all going across my "Easement" on my land. The Easement was granted in my Deed to the City so yes there's a civic responsibility to allow for valid utility concerns to use that Easement to provide services for the community. That doesn't however prohibit multiple companies from putting in their own cabling infrastructure just becase somebody else did it already. The providers have paid the city, paid the contractors and bought the cable and fiber. They own that infrastructure. Now, should they be allowed to permit other competitors to use that "last mile" to my house? I think they should be allowed to after a certain amount of time, say 5 years. AFAIK the AT&T Ruling by Judge Green for example allowed "Dark Fiber" to be leased for example from the AT&T infrastructure. I can't see why Verizon wouldn't fall under that same thought with their "FIOS" infrastructure as well allowing another carrier say AT&T to use it for their U-Verse services.
  Now, once the traffic is on those networks, I believe that it should be treated equally but it's their network that you're paying for. If you don't like the service, complain, get it changed or go to another carrier. It's that last mile that has you locked into accepting terms that you may not like.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
8. Re:Give it Up! by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 08:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  >>>Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  Not a free market. It's controlled by the *monopoly* called the Reserve Bank, which is itself controlled by the Congress, which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans. That eventually led to the housing crisis. That is not a free market. That's an oligarchy of 535 men.
  A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand. Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.
  Yes that means some would hear the word "no". Oh well.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
9. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're implying is that if I make an investment to provide services to you I shouldn't have domain over the Ts&Cs? If that's the case then I won't make the investment and let the government build out that infrastructure.
  If I see a market that I can provide value to and make a profit then I'll invest in that market. Whether that's Internet Services or Widgets. If there's no possibility for profit or fear for over-regulation and minimalization of my investment then I can find other alternatives to invest in. Sometimes governments have to give incentives for monopolies no matter how much we dislike them to encourage the investment. Frankly, nobody is going to make money on bit level services. Look at VOIP now, it was the money maker of the new millenium. Now it's $25 from Vonage or $20/year from Magic Jack. Where's the margin for a company that just put in $2B in Fiber-optic cable trying to recoup some of that expense? Are we just saying that all Internet traffic is now a Socialist enterprise to serve the proletariat? If that's the case then you better get all Governments to build out the infrastructure, manage it and all tax us for it.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
10. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  the central banking system/debt based economy is not a result of the free market. Don't blame the free market.
11. Re:Give it Up! by Yokaze · 2009-04-20 09:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  > which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans.
  Care to back this up?
  Also, that is a theory, which is totally new to me. And frankly, even assuming that might be the case, I fail to see how "no money down" loans can lead to the sub-prime crisis.
  The canonical explanation which blames bad risk assessment (banks, rating agencies) seems much more plausible to me.
  > A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates,[...]
  The Fed is only setting the interest rate at which banks can borrow from other banks. Your interest rate and that of mortgages are decided by your bank in competition with other banks.
  > Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.
  They already decide for themselves, but also include your securities and a lot of other factors. Unfortunately, they failed at that, because they relied too much on rating agencies, which overestimated the chances, because banks were too eager to get a piece of the sub-prime market. Positive feedback loop. Positive in the strictly numerical meaning.
  
  --
  "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
12. Re:Give it Up! by joocemann · 2009-04-20 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  What you say is true, but there is an overall flaw in this slashdot topic.
  There is a big difference between a 'threat to net neutrality' and an approach to dealing with 'graduated response' to ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
  Net Neutrality doesn't mean its ok to pirate software and music - it means that you will have open access to information. This is akin to freedom, wherein you can own knives, guns, ropes, and poisons, but you are still responsible for legal acts you might do with them. It isn't a loss of freedom for them to discuss responses to damages people do with poisons to others just as it isn't any loss of net neutrality to eventually ban you from using the internet.
  That does not mean the freedoms/neutrality is being limited, it means that if you are convicted of illegally using those freedoms, you may face limitations in the future. This is how civil people permit each other to act freely, but respond to wrongful acts. (Please don't give me a ration of b.s. opinion about copyright infringement --- we have these laws, and if you don't like them, change them).
13. Re:Give it Up! by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sue the bastards!
  
  --
  Here be signatures
14. Re:Give it Up! by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't give me a ration of b.s. opinion about copyright infringement --- we have these laws, and if you don't like them, change them
  I am going to give you my opinion about copyright, because I think I have the right to do so. Why? Because I am a DJ so I have to buy CD's. I can't get away with mp3 suckage, variable bitrates and DIY disc burning. I am also a Linux user and gamer so I buy only the legal retail copies of games so that in the future I can still play them with Wine, which is coded against legal copies of apps and games and not cracks and fixes and whatever. Also legal retail game discs last longer and you can play online with them, there are mods created for them and in some cases 1st and/or 3rd party gamefixes for playing them on a newer version of Windows (like with Oni, a game I have good 'back in the old days'-memories about).
  So now that I've said that, I think I can whine about copyright. Everything should be freely available under the sence of culture. If we are forbidden to share culture than how the freaking fsck can we even respect our society?
  And yes, I actualy am being doing something about that too, but no joy and potentialy false hope before I (I need to say we) can deliver. there is a very high chance it will succeed though, thorugh legal channels that is.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
15. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  I know I'm just a coward here, but I am glad you wrote up a nice response here Yokaze...I was just writing a post quite similar.
  I second parent post.
16. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  > which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans.
  Care to back this up?
  Exactly, I bought a house in 2000, and I had to pay 5% of the loan's value...and mine was a Fanny-Mae loan (which was practically giving them out...) I still make payments on the house, so I am in no danger of foreclosure, unlike most of the folks that bought a house they couldn't afford.
  Everyone I know that bought a house had to put a down payment. It is only when you refinance that they don't look for a down payment.
17. Re:Give it Up! by joocemann · 2009-04-20 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  What if NAMBLA had an opinion about making love to young boys but started molesting them before they made the act legal? They would be convicted and restricted.
  I think copyrights are at the discretion of the owner. If an owner wants to capitalize on a product instead of share it freely in culture, it is theirs and they, as I believe, have that right to restrict. I am sure in you're capable of understanding where an artist may want to control the use of their work.
  Your point is well placed, though. I produce what people now refer to as 'conscious hip hop' (I call it old school hip hop aka unperverted hip hop). I own the copyrights to my songs but I share them freely with the world because it is more important for the positive messages of my songs to be heard than for money to be made. I don't permit people to capitalize from my work, but only to freely copy and share it. Go to my myspace page at the bottom of this post "area sound is here" and in my most recent blog you can download a zip of our recent EP! Enjoy!
  So, back on point -- despite what you feel to be the way of music and culture, we do have laws that may or may not need to be changed (opinion). As it stands those laws deem piracy illegal. What is apparent here is they will ban your access to the internet if you continue to do things illegally. That could be sharing child porn, spamming people, harassing people, etc. I appreciate your opinion on copyright laws, but as it stands the laws are in place and those that break the laws can be convicted. Regardless, it appears online freedoms may be limited based on the outcomes of criminal convictions just like freedoms in real life. This doesn't mean it is a threat to net neutrality, it means that if you are a criminal you may lose net neutrality (freedom) on the internet just as you might in the real world.
  I'm sure you wouldn't want a convicted murderer to be able to buy and register guns anymore, right?
18. Re:Give it Up! by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The Fed is only setting the interest rate at which banks can borrow from other banks. Your interest rate and that of mortgages are decided by your bank in competition with other banks.
  And those rates are typically tied to the Fed rates. In fact my credit card contract states, "Federal Reserve Prime Rate + 10.9%". I don't have a mortgage but if I did, I'm sure it would have a similar clause if it was the variable-type mortgage. That's not a free market, but a controlled market where the central bank directly controls the price of borrowed money.
  As for proof:
  Welp... I used to have a video bookmark which included the Congressional speeches (both sides) pushing to pass a regulation mandating "no payment down" loans. It was part of a 1990s initiative to get every American into their own private home, even if they were low-income workers, but unfortunately I can't find the video on youtube. Oh well. It's called the "Community Reinvestment Act" if you want to google or wiki it.
  As for why such a policy would create a collapse, there are two reasons: (1) The "no down" loans caused a huge increase in demand which drove-up prices from $120,000 (historical average) to over $200,000. A bubble. (2) Because low-income people were given loans with 0 dollars down, and those people couldn't afford to pay back the loans over the long term, they typically defaulted. Basically they were given loans that they should Not have been given. That led to mortgage companies bankrupting, which led to the housing bubble bursting (2007), bank destabilization (2008), and that eventually trickled across the whole economy.
  It all goes back to the market being a controlled market that mandated a stupid idea (give loans to people who don't have enough money to pay them back), and not a free market. Here's a video of Congressman Ron Paul. Some people think he's a nut, but I think he makes a lot of sense. "Don't make the mistake to blame free market capitalism for this problem." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT8HAVpKpBk - and at timestamp 4:35: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzagrai-0M
  Offtopic -
  I stumbled across this other video I thought was interesting. In brief the County Government removed political signs for a Republican candidate, then they threatened to fine the owner $1000 if he puts them up again, thereby taking away free speech. Had it been me I would have said "Fine me" and dealt with the consequences later. Odds are, given the misapplication of the law, the courts would rule in my favor anyway. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJG3GB4EXag
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
19. Re:Give it Up! by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 11:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But at what point are you becoming a criminal? Is it going to be illegal in the future to even criticize your government? That happens in Australia... you'll just be getting banned. No, not you, but your website(!). You'll still be able to check it out, but no-one else will be able to so you're not even beinbg informed! That's scary...
  By the way, I am so glad people still make normal hip-hop instead of "Fsck those b*tches yo, n shit" gangster-(c)rap. God I hate that! And what most artists still don't understand; your music is you promotion. Th money you make is live.
  The best of luck with your music :D ;) I like it even though I solely listen to hard-dance in my spare time.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
20. Re:Give it Up! by Chirs · 2009-04-20 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Around here the choice of broadband providers is limited to two--cable or telco. Both are regulated monopolies. If both of them started filtering, I would have basically no recourse.
21. Re:Give it Up! by asdfndsagse · 2009-04-20 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  your idea is completely broken because under your idea a bank could make known bad loans and barrow on margin (thats what fractional reserve banking is all about) from other banks in a circle until then all go down at once and the CEOs take the cash. This is basically what happened.
  The problem with zero regulation is that it creates a boom and bust cycle where the banks repeatedly give you a lolli-pop and then slam a pineapple up your ass. And zero regulation is impossible with a modern system, it will always be based upon faith of some government.
  You either have to completely get rid of fractional reserve banking and return to hard money (with creates a boom and bust system) or you have a well-regulated central banking system. Elizabeth Warren said this well on the Daily Show. The US has had a boom and bust cycle of every 20 years until the great depression. Then finially we had a sne regulatory system and had a clean system for 50 years, then we started pulling out threads and creating a hybrid private interests/public money system: S&L and then Enron. I think regulation is really scary because it requires work on making sure it is enforced correctly and consistently, but its really the only way to both have a stable economy without boom and bust, and to have a have any market for credit.
22. Re:Give it Up! by lamapper · 2009-04-20 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Voting with your feet assumes that the market is healthy enough to have other carriers that don't practice the exact same thing you're trying to get away from. I'm not in Europe, so the outcome of this does not DIRECTLY affect me. I just like playing devil's advocate some days.
  All the current telcos have current relationships with each other. We saw it with long distance, we saw it with local calling service and we saw it with the build out of the cellular networks.
  There are ONLY two options:
  Government intervention as they had in Japan, thus they had 100 MB / 100MB for $55 and now they are getting 1 GB / 1 GB for under $55 and the providers are making MORE MONEY.
  A new, non aligned company enters the market with fiber to homes, in the communities where politicians have NOT already been bought off by the telcos, to apartments, to the last mile.
  My bets are on Obama and Google.
  I am not a democrat, I just see a smart American trying to do the right thing in the face of party politics.
  
  --
  Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
23. Re:Give it Up! by tsm_sf · 2009-04-20 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're implying is that if I make an investment to provide services to you I shouldn't have domain over the Ts&Cs? If that's the case then I won't make the investment and let the government build out that infrastructure.
  
  You're forgetting the billions given to you on the agreement that you'd build out the infrastructure in the first place. Conveniently forgetting.
  
  Apparently it's socialism only when money flows to someone who isn't you.
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
24. Re:Give it Up! by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The US has had a boom and bust cycle of every 20 years until the great depression.
  And after. The Depression ended sometime around 1951-52, and then we had a boom that lasted twenty years until the 1970s bust... then we had another boom starting in 1981 that lasted until 1999 which is another twenty plus-or-minus a few years. You miscategorize the situation if you think the cycle stopped.
  As for the rest of your post, it's confusing what point you were trying to make, but you appear to be under the false impression that we had a free market. We did not. We have a controlled market operated by a *private* monopoly called the Reserve Bank, and a Congress that was pulling the banking/mortgage strings via the Community Reinvestment Act (which caused the housing bubble). Watch these videos:
  "Don't make the mistake to blame free market capitalism for this problem." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT8HAVpKpBk - and at timestamp 4:35: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzagrai-0M
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
25. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  what financial services bust did we have in the 70s? and everyone will agree that the depression ended much sooner than 1951.
  I never said that we had a free market, we had no such thing. I am saying that a free market is impossible to achieve. The closest thing we had to a "free market" it what we had during the late 19th century all the way through the depression, and we know how that turned out. If government doesn't do the regulating then corporations will end up just adsorbing a vacuum of control and using it to create a monopoly behemoth: basically a government in which nobody has any control or say.
  A neutral market is heavenly and works best with efficient government regulation that is equally and regularly applied: Free markets are good for people, but history says that free markets are very bad at staying free. Government must step in and make sure the market stays free (ie preventing the market from shunning new competitors) or you get anarchy. Your ideal is noble but your missing the crux. You should be fearing some of the large corporations, those corporations that attempt to act like government, much more than you should be fearing government; as you can vote in government, and you cant vote, at least in any democratic way, in a corporation.
  heres the video i referenced: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=224255 the interview in the 3rd part.
26. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  just posting to cancel mod
27. Re:Give it Up! by damburger · 2009-04-20 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  The canonical explanation which blames bad risk assessment (banks, rating agencies) seems much more plausible to me.
  And it also sounds more plausible to most economists - it just sounds implausible to rabid libertarians and neoliberals who are emotionally invested in the idea of perfect markets. To them, the idea that markets are not the ideal means to communicate economic information (the risk of a loan being defaulted, for example) is quite literally a heresy.
  You can't get them to admit they are wrong, but rest assured that most of them will eventually adjust their views to fit reality.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
28. Re:Give it Up! by MrMr · 2009-04-20 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Free Markets do eventually work their way around to providing the services people want for the price they're willing to pay.
  Yes and in the intervening centuries the people are stuck with state-sanctioned monopolies.
  Good thing we don't live now.
29. Re:Give it Up! by ImNotAtWork · 2009-04-20 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  Changes in mortgage rates in the U.S. are tied closer to the LIBOR than the reserve rate. http://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest-rates/libor.aspx
  
  --
  open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
30. Re:Give it Up! by FrkyD · 2009-04-20 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  true. it was just gamed by free market advocates and fans of ponzi schemes. If you still havent learned that the voracity of human greed will lead to collusion, exploitation and unfair practices, then you really havent been paying attention in class.
31. Re:Give it Up! by DiamondMX · 2009-04-20 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whilst this doesn't look like it's about Net Neutrality, it is about the neutrality of the internet and specifically the ISPs.
  If this 'three strikes' rule gets implemented, all of a sudden the legal system of the internet is no longer controlled by the courts, but by the RIAA and the MPAA and anything else with AA at the end.
  I'd say giving a group of companies the right to boot people they decide not to like off the internet is fairly biased, not very neutral at all.
32. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Billions Given To Me? Well then, that's my incentive to hire 40000 people and payoff local officials for permits so I can provide the service. It's all part of the agreement isn't it? What you're doing is validating my point because I've been given that monopoly I can impose those Ts & Cs to maximize my profit and drive my competition away. As long as I'm allowed to do that, I'll charge you as much as I want. I own that infrastructure. That's how private enterprise works. Now if you want Net Neutrality you need to provide a more competitive arena and prohibit "last mile" monopolization of the delivery. As long as governments allow this in contracts that they agree to then you'll always have some vendor playing with the services to maximize the profit margins.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
33. Re:Give it Up! by migla · 2009-04-20 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, the crisis is this bad since from the eighties onwards yuppie laissez faire type motherfuckers have had too much influence on describing how things work which has led to deregulation and consequently to the boom-bust economy again.
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
34. Re:Give it Up! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2009-04-21 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  The problem wasn't that the free market failed it was that it started to correct the problem (bad banks failing) and government stepped in and prevented the market from clearing (bad banks from filing for bankruptcy). Most people would have been unaffected by bank failures since there is the FDIC so the fear mongering that people would loose everything was bunk.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
35. Re:Give it Up! by vertinox · 2009-04-21 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand.
  Historically that has always resulted in bank failures and bank runs and the loss of the savings of many thrifty people.
  Without some regulation, either through malice or incompetence, a bank is going to screw its customers out of their money because someone thought they could take a risk they could not (like giving out loans to people who could not afford it... hrm... sounds familiar)
  Banks are not going to do this on their own and in order for people to have a safe place to put their money, there has to be a lender of last result in case there is a run on the bank.
  Historically, during the 1890-1910 era, the lender of last result was other banks, but when they all ran out of money at once, it became a problem and was most likely only saved by JP Morgan. Considering such a nice monopolist might not always be around, the Federal Reserve was created.
  Like it or not, human irrationality and greed sometimes gets the better of us. If we let the banks fail, yes it will correct itself eventually, but you just ruined the savings of a lot of people.
  What are you going to tell them? Do more research before investing in banks that weren't transparent with their numbers anyways?
  No. Those people tend to vote for parties who will regulate so the problem resolved itself.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
36. Re:Give it Up! by timq · 2009-04-21 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  A "free markets" approach is not a valid excuse for DHL to open your package.
  Neither should it be an excuse to do deep packet inspection.
37. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-21 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not unless the government mandates that they search it. Right now there's proposed US legislation that would mandate keeping track of everybody who accesses a network down to the IP address level. How does that scale against Net Neutrality?
  The Government can tap your network connections, your phone calls and subpoena records. Deep packet inspection is merely an extension of that. Granted, a vendor shouldn't be doing that unless the governments have cause. Then again, what legislation
  is stopping them now?
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
38. Re:Give it Up! by joocemann · 2009-04-21 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  You make a really good point about the abuse of the system and draconian politic. I agree that such abuses should not be allowed. Are the Australians too sated to do whats right for themselves and revolt? Maybe as a whole they are still too free and happy to truly care. I have noticed that in our world absent of ideals, masses are quite satisfied with the best piece of shit they can find. In this case the Australians are probably more glad not to be a somalian resorting to piracy.
39. Re:Give it Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Problems with your post:
  1) The Federal Reserve System is governed by a board of governors which is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate to very long terms, remarkably like the federal judiciary. If Congress dislikes what the Fed is doing, it change the laws governing it, just like it can change a law to get around a decision a judge has made, but given that the Fed is self-financing, it is probably less "controlled by the Congress" than the judicial branch.
  2) I assume what you are referring to as "mandated...no money down loans" is the Community Reinvestment Act. Firstly, the idea that Congress in any way mandated "no money down" loans is ridiculous. Secondly, debate about whether the CRA "caused" the subprime mortgage crisis still rages, but the evidence is pretty strongly that it did not (evidence such as areas affected by the CRA, like inner-city areas, not being areas affected by the predatory lending, mortgage defaults, etc, mostly suburban/exurban areas). CRA banks were less likely to resell loans (which is what caused collapse of places like AIG and Bear Stearns). The CRA penalized banks participating in it for engaging in loans that it considered unsafe based on the actual loan, and originally didn't allow securitization at all.
  3) Calling Congress an oligarchy is certainly reasonable, based on what is required to get there (money, connections, etc). However, the same argument can be made about capitalism, even in a "free market". Simply having capital can often be enough to maintain a certain amount of power, including proffering the ability to stop those attempting to gain capital themselves, not to mention the number of people who have been put into positions of power because they happen to have been a part of the right fraternity, country club, etc. There is nothing in a free market that would prevent those sorts of placements from occurring (remember, free market is not "perfect market", we don't have perfect information and thus would have no more right nor need to know the minutiae of corporate functioning).
  Basically, my point is that while yeah, OP's assertion that free markets were completely to blame for the banking industry troubles is incorrect, you're argument defending free markets isn't exactly correct, either. Considering the amount of corruption and fraud by all parties in this case, it's pretty damn hard to lay the blame in any specific place, other than that: corruption and fraud.
40. Re:Give it Up! by commodore64_love · 2009-04-21 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  No libertarian thinks the market is purpose...er, perfect. They simply think it's better than the alternative of government control. Like the current crisis where the government is artificially propping-up bad businesses. That is the wrong approach, and the proper approach is to let those businesses go bankrupt, and then the pieces can be sold off to healthier businesses.
  The free market is basically natural selection in action - yes there are hard times and yes some organisms/ businesses don't survive, but what emerges from the hard times is stronger, leaner, and better. What government is doing is the equivalent of trying to save the dinosaurs from extinction. All that does is put an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer's back. A better solution is to let them die, so the other younger healthier species can take over.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
41. Re:Give it Up! by damburger · 2009-04-22 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped reading when you invoked natural selection as a political guideline rather than a scientific phenomenon.
  Appealing to 'nature' is intellectually dishonest, illogical, and as history shows us - downright dangerous. Nature does a lot of things, doesn't mean we should imitate them.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
42. Re:Give it Up! by joocemann · 2009-04-22 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree with how the RIAA operate, nor many of the ways they do their work. But the RIAA doesn't just make a judgement; they are required to go through the same legal processes that any other legal representative of a victim must go through. Furthermore, conviction requires the RIAA to compel the court with sufficient evidence.
  Fortunately their shady methods have been brought to light so they will definitely need much more solid evidence before a court.
  Also take note that this must happen to someone 3 times before they get banned. You tell me how many times Michael Jackson needs to sleep with a boy and be accused before we can safely assume he's actually doing something illicit -- and I'll tell you that if you've faced the RIAA in court and been convicted 3 times, you need to quit pirating shit.
43. Re:Give it Up! by DiamondMX · 2009-04-23 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  You need to go research the topic as the three strikes rule does not involve a court, at all.
  You need to be accused by the RIAA, or another copyright body, three times. And they don't need much evidence at all to decide that you're guilty.
  And if you've been accused by the RIAA of pirating 3 times, they need to stop making false accusations to scaremonger people.
44. Re:Give it Up! by Yokaze · 2009-04-23 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  The wikipedia article on CRA shows no sign of a requirement of "No money down" loans. It also states, that only certain banks were regulated by the CRA, and interestingly:
  
  2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower.
  While correlation may not be causation, no correlation is a fairly good indicator for no causation.
  > And those rates are typically tied to the Fed rates. [...] That's not a free market, but a controlled market where the central bank directly controls the price of borrowed money.
  Considering that 10 per cent is much higher than the fed-rate is, writing X + Fed-rate would be much more sensible. And who dictates the 10 per cent?
  Fixing it to their maximum interest rate is simply a safety measure to guarantee their profit.
  
  --
  "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
European Parliament Elections very soon... by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Send a clear message that this nonsense will not be tolerated... to help make an intelligent decision when voting in European elections, see:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en [laquadrature.net]
Check out the Political memory resource:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_Memory [laquadrature.net]
especially the "List of recorded votes" section to see who voted for what - before you reward them with your vote for them.
Also of interest, the Telecoms Package section: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package [laquadrature.net]
1. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Computershack · 2009-04-20 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Send a clear message that this nonsense will not be tolerated... to help make an intelligent decision when voting in European elections, see:
  Personally I'm more interested in voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future. Being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying is WAY down the list of things of importance, if it even makes the list at all.
  If you're voting based purely on wanting to keep downloading pirated stuff then you are pissing your vote away and should have the right to vote in the future removed as you're not responsible enough to exercise it.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
2. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 08:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's about free speech, which even for you should weigh heavier than your job, the inflation and the safety of your family.
  What if you get abused by your employer but are unable to say anything about it, or even warn others from accepting positions there? What if the government imprisons your family but you are unable to voice your protest?
  Nothing weighs heavier than free speech and freedom of expression. Internet should be a free, uncensored, unmonitored channel of communication that adheres to no rules.
  The Internet is larger than the clowns in the Parliament, it can never be controlled and even the intent of trying to control it should be made illegal.
  (I will be voting for the Swedish Pirate Party)
3. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Check out the Political memory resource:
  Cool. We need a website like this for the United States' Congress and the 50 State Legislatures.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
4. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Yokaze · 2009-04-20 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > Personally I'm more interested in voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
  We are getting close to Godwin's law.
  > Being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying is WAY down the list of things of importance, if it even makes the list at all.
  
  Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed
  on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users,
  without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities,
  notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of
  Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of
  expression and information, save when public security
  is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.
  How is that about "being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying"?
  Also, I don't think that keeping me in job or inflation low or keeping me and my family safe is the job of parliament.
  
  --
  "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
5. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >>>voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
  What you're looking for is not "politicians" but "parents", and since I presume you are not a child, my advice is that you need to "put away your childish things" and stand on your own two feet as an adult. The purpose of the government is not to babysit you and/or raid your neighbors wallets like Daddy Soprano & give you their money (which I call theft of labor). The purpose of government, to quote the founder of the Democratic Party, is to "prevent one man from harming another. And that is all the government should interfere." - Thomas Jefferson.
  Another person, not sure who, said "A government powerful enough to give everything you need is also powerful enough to take everything you have. Including your property, your liberty, or your life." Just ask the American citizens who President FDR forced into concentration camps. FDR had become so powerful, he was able to imprison millions of Americans with just a word from his lips, like a living reincarnation of the Roman Emperor and completely contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land.
  The bigger the government becomes, the smaller your liberty becomes, until you might as well be living like a child, who must constantly ask permission. I don't want to live in such a society.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
6. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Computershack · 2009-04-20 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's nothing to do with free speech at all and everything to do with a bunch of juvenile freeloaders wanting to continue their rampant criminality without recourse so don't go trying to dress it up like it is. The internet can be controlled extremely easily and if it can't, it shows just how little you know about the back end.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
7. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Matt+Perry · 2009-04-20 10:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Just ask the American citizens who President FDR forced into concentration camps. FDR had become so powerful, he was able to imprison millions of Americans with just a word from his lips, like a living reincarnation of the Roman Emperor and completely contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land.
  Here's a link for non-Americans who may not know about this.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
8. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by tsm_sf · 2009-04-20 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's nothing to do with free speech at all and everything to do with a bunch of juvenile freeloaders wanting to continue their rampant criminality without recourse so don't go trying to dress it up like it is.
  
  Yeah, man! Stick it to the telcos!
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
9. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by vertinox · 2009-04-21 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Lets be pragmatic about it.
  1. Without regulation, monopolies will eventually form and once at the top they will leverage their position to increase barriers to market entry. They will also manually set arbitrary prices and wages and therefore be no better than communism.
  2. Humans won't wait 10 years through an economic depression. They'll either turn to crime because they feel that society in general screwed them or they'll join or vote for radical political alignments in order to push change. You can chastise people all you want, but when you've lost your job and all your savings, you aren't going to say "Oh well. Free market and all that." You've got a family to feed and your mad.
  I agree with Jefferson in the idea of limited government. However, Jefferson never foresaw Standard Oil or the rise of mega corporations of the United States so he never wrote about how he felt since they did not exist in the USA at the time.
  However, they did exist in England at the time and Jefferson wrote that corporations and organized businesses were evil and an affront to our freedoms here in the states:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#View_on_corporations
  
  In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
  In the end, I'm sure Jefferson would have been very pragmatic about the issue and also accepted regulation of corporations as well as government.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
10. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  Personally I'm more interested in voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
  You're just part of the problem. Thanks for voting for the corrupt.
11. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-21 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  1. When monopolies form, they do not last. Either new companies emerge to offer lower prices than the monopoly's prices, or new technologies emerge to break the monopoly (CDs replaced by downloadable songs, for example), or both at the same time. You mentioned Standard Oil... well that held a monopoly for maybe ten years, but then the monopoly eroded due to new companies emerging in Texas and the monopoly was broken. There was no need for government interference.
  >>>Jefferson never foresaw Standard Oil or the rise of mega corporations of the United States
  Yes he did. He said corporations should be abolished, because they exceed the power of government and that threatens individual liberty. Instead he thought services should be provided on a small scale with individual owners, rather than a huge monstrosity that has no soul and no morals except to get lots of dollars. I agree with him.
  Of course a corporation is still better than a government. A corporation can't tax money directly from my wallet, throw me in jail if I refuse to pay, or send me to die in some mudhole in Vietnam or Arghanistan. Both are evil, but government is the greater evil.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Stop it. by DAldredge · 2009-04-20 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Stop trying to equate network neutrality with stealing. Punishing those who keep stealing/pirating content doesn't have anything to do with NN.
1. Re:Stop it. by spydabyte · 2009-04-20 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  It does to the criminals. If all their b/w gets filtered out for legitimate business, where would they turn to? Dialup? Not likely. SSL or Tunneling probably.
2. Re:Stop it. by IAD.Tatami · 2009-04-20 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Tell you what- I'll think about it if you stop trying to equate copyright infringement with theft.
3. Re:Stop it. by joocemann · 2009-04-20 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  I just posted about this. Great job at getting your post in early so it gets seen.
  There is no relationship between eventually banning a criminal from the internet, and limiting access to information.
  This whole damn slashdot posting needs to be modded OFFTOPIC since the subject matter and the headline have nothing in common.
  I'll be damn pleased if criminals on the internet eventually get their access cut off. We do these same things in the rest of the civilized world. It doesn't mean your freedoms are being limited, it means you shouldn't be doing illegal things if you want to keep all your freedoms.
4. Re:Stop it. by joocemann · 2009-04-20 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Don't do crime, don't get your freedoms limited. Life isn't as hard as you're pretending it is. Follow the law or change the law, but in the end it is important to know that a repercussion for a convicted criminal is not the same as limiting freedoms.
  What do you suppose we do with criminals? Nothing?
5. Re:Stop it. by Spyder0101 · 2009-04-20 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Criminals" (wrong word, but whatever) have technical means to get around any sort of traffic prioritisation, so it is not an issue for them. A small online book-store, however, would have a hard time competing if its traffic was intentionally delayed since Amazon's traffic were deemed more important (not just that Amazon purchased a faster connection)
  
  --
  Troll, n. - Someone who disagrees with me
6. Re:Stop it. by freedom_india · 2009-04-20 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  When the mere act of sharing a NSL Letter with my lawyer is treated as a crime, when the mere act of having a FlashMob party with my friends at the local Pub becomes a crime, when the mere act of refusing to pay taxes on blank CD/DVDs AND paying a fine to local RIAA for downloading music to my PC becomes a crime, when the congressmen and MPs who were elected by me refuse to listen to me and instead obey the diktats of Moneybags and pass an act that makes it a crime to high-five my friends at school, when the local Town Hall reduces the time between Yellow & Red to a mere 0.3 seconds thus causing me to fender bender another car and refusing to accept responsibility for the crime, that is when i become a criminal.
  Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Great American Jurist said: "Criminals are NOT born. They are made."
  They are made when the powers that be decide unilaterally to obey moneybags and NOT ME the one who votes for them.
  They are made when the local police beat to death a peaceful protester and escape responsibility for crime via technicality.
  They are made when RIAA forces changes laws which force me to pay pirate-taxes on blank CD/DVDs for loss of income from piracy and then charge me with a $5000 settlement fee when i download for free music.
  Who defines who is a criminal?
  The police? Since when has a cop been charged with speeding by another cop?
  The courts? Since when has a judge questioned the legality of the law?
  The Law as passed by congressmen who consider themselves above the law? Since when was the last time a congressman was given a parking ticket or a speeding ticket by a cop?
  Since when has congress voted to let the voters approve of pay raises to themselves?
  Since when has the Government been convicted of violating a law: NSA? Bush?
  Bush had Beatles on his iPod. Did RIAA due him, convict him?
  Explain all that to me, before you open your pie-hole.
  
  --
  "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
7. Re:Stop it. by joocemann · 2009-04-21 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You pretend to care enough, but you don't. If you did you would do something about this supposed corrupt activity and revolt. Instead you'll sit back and be pacified by all the good things your government does for you and wait for someone else to throw the first stone.
  Get real, get reality. Do crime, you get convicted and deal with the consequences. If you want the laws changed, quit crying to me about it and actually go do something about it. You're the guy upset about the way laws incriminate --- its on you to make that change. ACT! Otherwise your words are just piss in the river or a fart in the wind, man.
The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by maillemaker · 2009-04-20 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's quite clear to me that the end of the Golden Age of the Internet is drawing near.
The internet has finally drawn the attention of the huge money and power brokers of the world. These people are going to make sure that the Internet serves their ends as much as possible.
Oh, there will be the few geeks who know how to set up a proxy to secure a tiny bit of anonymity until one of the Big Fish get wind of you and get interested in tracking you down, but for the most part, all connections are going to be monitored. They are going to know who's on each end of every communication channel, and they are going to know what is being communicated, and to a large extent, they will control it. Whether it's priority transmission speeds, bandwidth capping, or outright censoring, there's too much money at stake on the Internet now to leave the playing field "neutral".

--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
1. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Computershack · 2009-04-20 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Oh do piss off. All of this is only being brought in because a minority of internet users are incapable of controlling themselves. Fuck em. When you've 10% of an ISP's users using 90% of the traffic, mostly for illegal purposes, then something needs to be done for the benefit of the 90% who are able to exercise restraint.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
2. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by basementman · 2009-04-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  People have predicted the end of net neutrality and the internet for years. It still hasn't happened, and it's because of places like Slashdot.
  
  --
  A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
3. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Jestrzcap · 2009-04-20 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's less clear to me that this is the case.
  You think Google is going to put up long with some idiot provider charging customers an extra $20/month to allow access to *.google.com/*
  You think Google is going to share it's ad revenue with consumer ISPs? I'm just using Google as an example, but multiply this by all the big businesses out there.
  Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc are all competing with each other using different technologies. Within the next 5 years or so you'll have fiber-class wireless connections available to your homes.
  You really think every single player is going to be able to pull their head out of their butts long enough to coordinate something as complex as tiered internet?
  Competition is going to keep net neutrality a reality until the basics fundamentally change. You may have the odd player who tries to nickel and dime their customers by over regulating their networks, but it'll be the minority, and there will be options.
  
  --
  "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
4. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by LighterShadeOfBlack · 2009-04-20 08:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Oh no, the big bad moneymen are here to they'll rape and pillage our Internet and there's nothing we can do to stop them. The end is near! Boo-hoo. If you don't like the way the wind is blowing, stand up and fight against it you fucking pussy. You're not helpless so stop acting like you are.
  That probably sounds like a troll but I'm so sick of hearing the defeatist attitude of people who could actually prevent these things if they stopped whining about them for five minutes and stood up for their supposed beliefs. The entire point of the news post and TFA is that this vote hasn't happened yet, so there's still time to do something about it.
  
  --
  Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
5. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by nightstar007 · 2009-04-20 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Split the Internet into many littler Internets! Start over!!
  
  --
  ~M "There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it." - Denis Diderot
6. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Computershack · 2009-04-20 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  So they put in optics to increase throughput. So what? Someone still needs to pay for the servers, the routers, the switches, the electricity to run it all, the buildings the equipment is housed in. A router or switch can only transmit so much data per port, it's not infinite. A server can only serve so much data per second.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
7. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. Like "per gigabyte" pricing. It seems entirely logical that grandma should only pay $7 a month for her minimal usage, while I pay $100 a month for my heavy downloading. I'm using more electricity therefore I'm costing the ISP more money. It's only natural that I should pay more overall.
  Of course, if I did have to pay $100 that means I'd download less, probably moving to smaller files like 150 megabytes instead of the 1.5 gig HD videos. So it's a reinforcing paradigm where higher prices encourage lower consumption to save money. Just like gasoline encourages smaller cars.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
8. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  because of places like Slashdot
  HAahahahahH HAHAHHAHHAH Hahahah ahhahhaha haha
  No. It's because controlling the internet is a difficult problem, especially while it's growing so fast. As growth slows down and political power catches up, control will come. You can bet on it.
9. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Jestrzcap · 2009-04-20 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  They'd have more to lose in a system like this. Their costs for operation remain pretty much the same from month to month (just maintaining a network that already exists), but they could lose a whole lot of money just because people didn't feel like downloading the latest youtube sensation. Not only that but peak times would pretty much remain peak times and any "bottlenecks" would still get bumped into. They'll continue to set policies that affect the top 10% (many of whom are taking advantage of the system or doing things of dubious legality) and kick/ban people who are making waves (even if it's legit usage).
  Bandwidth Ratio's are much less of a threat to "Net Neutrality" than ISPs deciding that you must pay them a premium (extra $10) to access google.com or similar schemes.
  
  --
  "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
10. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by cdrguru · 2009-04-20 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Usage is not the only cost to an ISP. If you download .001GB per month but spend four hours every month on the phone with their tech support the usage is minimal compared to the support cost.
  I'm sure there are plenty more examples of other costs. No way can they charge just by GB - at least not anywhere near their actual GB cost.
11. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  More like grandma pays $7 for internet and $90 for cable TV, and you pay $100 for internet. And you're really OK with 150mb video? That's OK for a 10 min porn clip, but it's unwatchable accept by grandmothers with cataracts.
12. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  >>>They'd have more to lose in a system like this.
  Then what are we worried about? Even if they pass the per-gigabyte pricing, they'll quickly self-correct and go back to the old flat-rate model, rather than lose money.
  >>>Bandwidth Ratio's are much less of a threat to "Net Neutrality"
  I don't know what that is.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
13. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by vertinox · 2009-04-21 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, there will be the few geeks who know how to set up a proxy to secure a tiny bit of anonymity until one of the Big Fish get wind of you and get interested in tracking you down, but for the most part, all connections are going to be monitored. They are going to know who's on each end of every communication channel, and they are going to know what is being communicated, and to a large extent, they will control it.
  I suspect if it becomes a large problem for a large set of people, then people will start encrypting everything by default and creating intranets.
  Sure it will be a lot of overhead and governments can start outlawing encryption (well how would that work for the banks?) but I think the only reason people haven't done so now is because they are scared enough or care if people look at their data.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
14. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Then it's time to get the small axes together to chop down the big tree.
15. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by commodore64_love · 2009-04-21 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's true, but most companies don't charge for tech support. If for example I started calling my electric company for hours on end, and asking for assistance converting my bulbs to compact fluorescent lights, they would not assess me a fee. They'd keep charging me the same 8 cents per kilowatthour they've always charged, and consider the tech support as part of their "cost of doing business". i.e. Good customer service.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
16. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by csartanis · 2009-04-22 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure that was his point. He's costing them money by making support calls while using very little service.
URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann prote by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 08:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Bad form to reply to own post, but I just saw this related news item at http://www.laquadrature.net/en
URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann protect EU citizens.
Paris, April 20th 2009 - The Council of the EU is strongly pushing Catherine Trautmann - rapporteur of the main directives of the "Telecoms Package" - to accept a useless, neutralized version[1] of amendment 138. This amendment, opposing to "graduated response - or "three strikes" â" schemes, has been overwhelmingly adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading on September 2008, and is crucial for safeguarding EU citizens' rights and freedoms. La Quadrature du Net calls European citizens to urge their MEPs seating in ITRE committee to support the rapporteur by refusing any compromise neutralizing amendment 138 (now renumbered 46) on April 21st vote.
[1] The Council wants to make it a merely indicative recital instead of an article that Member States must transpose into their law
Why would they want to... by d474 · 2009-04-20 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

...basically DRM the entire internet? That's where they are eventually trying to get to, and we all know it.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
1. Re:Why would they want to... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The answer is obvious. They don't want us getting stuff for free. They want us to borrow even more money, go even deeper into debt, and buy more DVDs, CDs, and books. It's all about the $$$.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Bandwidth Exceeded by Jonas+Buyl · 2009-04-20 08:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems the website couldn't handle Slashdot but remember it's still available in Google's Cache @ http://shuurl.com/F4451
What Net Neutrality? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:07 · Score: 0

Er - maybe I'm missing the point here but haven't we already lost net neutrality in Europe? We already have traffic shaping in the UK - isn't that what this is all about?
1. Re:What Net Neutrality? by Computershack · 2009-04-20 09:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's about your ISP being told to kick you off the net after being caught using it for illegal activity 3 times. You know, just like most ISPs do in the UK already, with some kicking you the first time.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
alright idiot. then be a slave. by unity100 · 2009-04-20 09:07 · Score: 1

they will guarantee your job, they will guarantee your children's job, they will make sure you eat food.
but you and your children will do what they want, forever.
go get yourself fucked in your own little serfdom. this is not the europe i want.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, from your ideas, opinions, statements and everybody elses, wheter for or against the issues we have and face, I can conclude that western civilisation, capitalism and governments are the least worse form of human society.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
2. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Are they? The least worse type? I disagree. The Athenian Democracy killed itself through foolish decisions made by the demos (the people). Are the modern Euro-American democracies heading down the same path, a ship of state led by the ignorant masses? Furthermore is democracy truly "liberty" or is it just another form of tyranny wherein the larger 51% squash the smaller minority underfoot.
  I can think of a government that is better than a democracy:
  A Republic that borders on the edge of anarchy (no government), with Laws that limit the politicians' power to a bare minimum necessary, such that every individual has the maximum liberty possible, with minimal interference with his or her pursuit of happiness. "Were it possible we would have no government. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. THAT is a better form of government than our modern-day tyrannies of the majority.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
3. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by tsm_sf · 2009-04-20 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with anarchy as a way of life is that you must respect my decision to kill you for supporting it.
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
4. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you think I was endorsing anarchy, then English must not be your first language. I said nothing of the kind. Re-read what I wrote, and this time try to pay attention. ;-)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
5. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you should be on the edge of anarchy, for the same reason that there are government in the first place.
  OK so maybe you and I can live a good life. OK so maybe a lot of other people who actually think for themselves can too, but the majority is still ruled by instinct!
  Group behavior, looking at girls chests instead of their eyes, etc. don't fit in this liberty picture at all.
  I like your ideals very much, but I can also see the simple and sad truth that most people amongst us just need to be put down, like saying "Don't do this, don't do that, or else!".
  Imagine the riots and the mafia sthanyle repression that would follow...
  ThÃt is why I was saying (or rather concluding) that democracy was the least worse form of western-, human society.
  Thank God some people invented religion in the early days of documented human history to at least keep people down untill governments were invented. I know that some realy bad things came, and are still comming, from religion. We realy need to get rid of that and instincts right now.
  The whole ideal of the perfect man and woman are already paving way for people to mate with those people that conform to these standards. Like with feminism... Feminists will only choose their guys who are interested in their personality instead of just 'tits, ass and sex'. This brings us some very positive evolution.
  So in the future it may be possible to live more and more on the edge of anarchy.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
6. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, the entire idea called anarchy is all about not needing a government because people should be getting along without it. So the problem with anarchy as a way of life is that you must not come up with the urge to kill people.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
7. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  ...and if he tries to kill someone, someone else might torture him to death.
  
  Kill and get killed!
8. Re:alright idiot. then be a slave. by commodore64_love · 2009-04-21 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  >>>OK so maybe a lot of other people who actually think for themselves can too, but the majority is still ruled by instinct!
  (1) Too bad. (2) I think you underestimate your fellow human beings. The U.S. lived on the edge-of-anarchy (minimal government) from 1789 to 1900 and almost everyone survived just fine. People took care of themselves and enjoyed being free of parental interference by the politicians.
  Now we have a nanny state, and it seems you can't do anything without government interference to slap you down. It feels like being a child with Uncle Sam as the dad.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann pr by shawb · 2009-04-20 09:07 · Score: 1

Bad form to reply to own post
Meh... only bad form on bulletin boards which have an "edit post" feature. Slashdot decided not to allow editing of posts (most likely because it would be too powerful of a tool for trolls) so it's all good here.

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
ITRE MEP contact info by LighterShadeOfBlack · 2009-04-20 09:13 · Score: 1

Contact information for the MEPs on the ITRE committee (along with their original votes on the first reading of the amendment).

--
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Cheesed Wife by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(
1. Re:Cheesed Wife by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(
  But how would you fit 100 German MEPs in your bedroom?
2. Re:Cheesed Wife by joocemann · 2009-04-20 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  She most really love her ipod.
3. Re:Cheesed Wife by DynaSoar · 2009-04-20 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(
  You're lucky she's not. If she could take on 100 Euro MPs in 3 hours in bed, she'd *kill* you.
  
  --
  "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Hosted in the US ... sigh by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-20 09:27 · Score: 1

I don't know wtf they were thinking, hosting in Europe is cheap, typically with unlimited traffic.
The public will not like this by Turzyx · 2009-04-20 09:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Most of the people I know are not familiar with the intricacies of today's technology. If they think for one minute they are being monitored, watched and spied upon by anyone, let alone government and telecoms companies, they'll stop internet shopping, social networking and wikipedia surfing immediately (which lets face it, is all most normal people use a PC for nowadays anyway). Just look at how much people kicked off over Facebook wanting to protect people's email inbox after the sender deleted their copy...

If this even get close to being passed, mainstream media will have a field day, especially given that most UK tabloids despise Europe in its entirety already.

Perhaps this is a ploy to stimulate high street sales amirite?
1. Re:The public will not like this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is again, the bloody european parliament sticking its head 10 bars above where it should be. Politicians in general are idiots, it just shows more-so when it comes to technology. The internet is just far too complicated for any politician to be poking around with.
  They don't seem to understand that stopping criminal use on the internet is as simple as installing Norton Internet Crime Blocker(TM) on the internet.
  Hopefully our government (UK) might see common sense on this issue. Its a general held opinion of the entire UK public here that Europe has nothing to offer us. We're giving more than we're getting so on that basis alone; i see no need for it.
2. Re:The public will not like this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  Hopefully our government (UK) might see common sense on this issue
  Bwahahaha that'd be a first.
  
  If they think for one minute they are being monitored, watched and spied upon by anyone, let alone government and telecoms companies, they'll stop internet shopping, social networking and wikipedia surfing immediately
  I don't buy it... I really don't think the majority of the people will stop using the internet because they think they're being monitored. Better yet, I bet the majority of the people won't even realize it or look at it like yet another paranoid conspiracy theory...
Fuck you asshole troll: sharing!=stealing by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-20 09:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Stealing is a subtraction.
Sharing is a multiplication.
Stick your tired propaganda talking points up where your proctologist can find them.
1. Re:Fuck you asshole troll: sharing!=stealing by joocemann · 2009-04-20 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument has some weight, but has nothing to do with the fact that this article is a completely wrong and misrepresents what net neutrality actually is.
  Do crime on the net, get banned. Its the same way in the real world. If you want the laws changed so you're not a criminal anymore, do it the right way by revolution or amendment --- talking shit on slashdot and conveniently pretending that laws don't exist won't get you anything but convicted and banned in the end.
2. Re:Fuck you asshole troll: sharing!=stealing by DAldredge · 2009-04-20 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I expected better behavior from someone like you.
3. Re:Fuck you asshole troll: sharing!=stealing by moortak · 2009-04-21 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The whole issue here is to get a chance to be convicted in a court, not automatically based on some company's word.
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
3 choices, both...? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:43 · Score: 0

How many choices do you have? 3 or 2?
After being ***accused*** three times by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:50 · Score: 1, Informative

Not after being caught.
And, of course, like that Record Industry CEO's daughter caught "stealing" music, those who want the law will not be held to that law. Being told off is what they get. What you get is jailed.
The real web pages by jonfr · 2009-04-20 10:23 · Score: 1

Here is the law text from europarl.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-0452
Press release.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1677&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
More information.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-52901-089-03-14-909-20090330IPR52900-30-03-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm
1. Re:The real web pages by jsiren · 2009-04-20 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the law text from europarl.
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-0452
  Could somebody point me to the relevant bits? I read through the text, but I can't seem to find where it says anything about three strikes or mandatory web filtering (as claimed by the Blackout Europe campaign), other than the basic idea that the end user must be advised of any traffic control policies.
  
  --
  Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
Your industry talking points have been noted by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-20 11:02 · Score: 1

Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.
1. Re:Your industry talking points have been noted by joocemann · 2009-04-20 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.
  Cry a river. It won't change shit about THE LAW. And until you man up and do something to actually change those laws, you'll get charged and convicted for what your opinion disagrees with. NAMBLA has an opinion too, but I hope they won't start making love to young boys until they get our country to accept their ideas.
  I'm not talking propaganda, I'm talking about reality. I am totally happy with banning people who do crime on the internet from using the internet over a 3-strikes 'graduated response'. If you don't like how copyright laws incriminate people, do something about it. Pretending they aren't real will just end up with you convincing your girlfriend to sign up for DSL at your house.
2. Re:Your industry talking points have been noted by DAldredge · 2009-04-20 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can share your property and the property of others who allow it all you want can you not? You problem is that you want to be able to share that which isn't yours in the first place.
Since the article is slashdotted... by McBeer · 2009-04-20 11:03 · Score: 1

I'm just going to assume that it warned us:
In Soviet Russia, net neutralizes you.

--
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
Talk about missing the point by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-20 11:22 · Score: 1

We're changing the law right here. That's what we are doing with the fine people at LQDN. In any case, I'm more than capable of doing whatever it takes not to be disconnected, me and all my high end pirated software.
Yes, I admit it, all my software is PIRATED. I downloaded it for free on the internet! Sue me! I can even give you the name and addresses of the copyright holders, even better, I'm going to GIVE YOU copies of ALL my software. For free. Oh my god I'm such a thief. Surely the makers of that software are all gonna die instantly and/or go bankrupt!1!!!
Be a good boy. Go hide under your bed.
1. Re:Talk about missing the point by joocemann · 2009-04-21 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not hiding from anything. Lol.
  Be a good boy and man up to your words. ACTUALLY do something instead of sitting on slashdot pretending like your complaints will make a difference.
  My guess is that you are actually too satisfied by the other good things your government provides and that you would rather enjoy that stability than do what is necessary to achieve your proposed goals. I'll be watching the news, waiting for ninnies like you to man up and do something about all this hustling and bustling you maintain.
  You're not alone. Millions of people are upset about various things but sit on their asses waiting for someone else to do the work for them; waiting for someone else to throw that first stone. It's hard to rationalize such extreme measures when you're in a 2000 sqft home with expendable money, health coverage, and clean water and food. I bet you're glad you're not a Somalian resorting to *actual* piracy to survive, right?
Europe : you gone too far! by kentsin · 2009-04-20 14:01 · Score: 1

Please stop make law too complicate and standards too strict.
You European gone too far, stupid!
blackouteurope not reachable! somebody acted quick by kubitus · 2009-04-20 19:29 · Score: 1

I think this ought to be worth an update. www.blackouteurope.eu is not reachable. according to the string reported, the server has reached its bandwidth limit!!
spooky - or quick action?
Re:URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann pr by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 19:43 · Score: 1

Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee Members contact details (Including emails), by country: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/MEPs_ITRE
Two clicks and a quick email/phone call to "urge [your] MEPs seating in ITRE committee to support the rapporteur by refusing any compromise neutralizing amendment 138 (now renumbered 46) on April 21st vote.".
(Thanks to Shawb for pointing out it is not bad form to reply to own post :)
Neutrality ? by DaveDerrick · 2009-04-20 20:22 · Score: 1

The "three strikes" rule is to deal with things like copyright theft. Since when has theft been anything to do with neutrality ?
1. Re:Neutrality ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  What's copyright theft? Something like when you first have a copyright over something and then the right gets transferred to someone else via dishonest (coercion, fraud, monopoly abuse..) means?
  And just three strikes? Shouldn't pretty much everone who is pushing this law be scared as hell of that?
Threat? by Xest · 2009-04-20 20:27 · Score: 1

I live in the UK and it's well beyond threat. Carter (and I wont refer to him by his full title of Lord because he's undeserving of it) has already given the green light for companies to do whatever the fuck they want and totally disregard net neutrality despite OFCOM previously announcing that they would protect it.
I guess it depends where you are in Europe, but certainly in the UK the Labour government has already outright written off the idea of net neutrality.
A lot of ISPs here have been using DPI to manage tiered access to services such that you have to pay more for a higher rate subscription to get better speeds on certain services (e.g. P2P, FTP, Gaming, VOIP) for a while now. The only thing they haven't done yet is do it on a per site basis, only on a per service basis.
I suppose this news might suck for the rest of Europe, but for the UK, well, it's a bit late for threats when the threat has already long been carried out.
Noob, you talk out of your back end (profanely) by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 23:46 · Score: 0

Speaking of "back end's": The evidence (of my subject-line) of your doing that, profanities and all, is here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 & Computershack, there in that url's parent posting, You've only shown us that you are only another name tossing noob, and one that only looks at the surface of things (but you clearly don't really know what's going on beneath the hood of operating systems (especially Windows)).
Let's call it for what it is... by cyberfin · 2009-04-21 00:10 · Score: 1

This is an attempt to control P2P networks.

In some countires like Spain, it is perfectly legal, as long as there is no economical gain by either side. There are two main giants that don't like it: the media giants and the internet providers. But it's legal. Tough. Introducing laws to change it would be stepping on so many toes (laws and rights in EU countries) that it is a conceptual nightmare.

That doesn't stop them from trying.

Let them.

--
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
Like the restraint you need on your profane mouth? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-21 01:20 · Score: 0

You need a muzzle for your profanity spewing mouth, Computershack. Then again, you are forced to "eat it" and go silent at times also, providing us great amusement. The evidence (of the amusement you provide and watching you have to go silent) of your doing that, profanities and all, is here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 & Computershack, there in that url's parent posting, You've only shown us that you are only another name tossing noob, and one that only looks at the surface of things (but you clearly don't really know what's going on beneath the hood of operating systems (especially Windows)).
What kind of idiot are you? by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-21 10:15 · Score: 1

I've been calling MEPs, meeting with my MP, writing a tech memo at the request of another, doing research and doing writeups for our advocacy group's wiki, fixing up websites and so on and so forth.
WTF are you rambling about?
1. Re:What kind of idiot are you? by joocemann · 2009-04-21 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  And when you get ignored, then what? You'll go back under the bed and write pissy poems and get all worked up telling your girlfriend about how upset you are... lol.
  All this discussion, beside the fact that banning criminals != threatening net neutrality. It means criminals get banned. I sure hope child porn and spammers get banned from access. I hope malware producers and black-hat hackers bet banned.
I didn't get ignored, you moron by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-04-21 12:31 · Score: 1

My MP reused one of my argument in the assembly, another, and he, along with the few main opponents, thanked us for our contributions; in fact they all met [I couldn't attend due to a last minute obligation] with the few MPs in a bar after the surprise vote of the 9th
I sure hope child porn and spammers get banned from access.
And I want cancer to be cured. I'm going to get a law passed to make cancer illegal. It's gonna be as useful as what you're defending here.
1. Re:I didn't get ignored, you moron by joocemann · 2009-04-22 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we'll see if you actually get ignored or not based on the outcome.
  Its a shame that you've so recklessly implied laws do not have meaningful outcomes. I'm sure the child pornographers and spammers that have already been busted, to-date, would disagree with your blatant misrepresentation of reality. If you felt that laws do not actually serve such purpose, what are you so upset about? Aren't you, according to your implication, immune to recourse for your actions?
  Unfortunately for your silly idea about cancer, there is no cognitive choice for a cell to become cancerous. Criminals do have a choice.
  And back to my other point. When it turns out you've still be ignored on the bigger scale, you won't throw a stone, you'll sit down and enjoy the fact that you're not born in Zimbabwe worrying about food, water, shelter and disease.
Good luck with that. by maillemaker · 2009-04-21 23:45 · Score: 1

If you wish to expend your life energies fighting the billions of dollars at stake here, good luck with that.

--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Not Quite True by Velska1 · 2009-04-22 01:27 · Score: 1
The whole ideal of the perfect man and woman are already paving way for people to mate with those people that conform to these standards. Like with feminism... Feminists will only choose their guys who are interested in their personality instead of just 'tits, ass and sex'. This brings us some very positive evolution.
So in the future it may be possible to live more and more on the edge of anarchy.
The ideal of the perfect man and woman has created, among others:
- A more lucrative plastic surgery and other appearance-enhancing stuff than ever before (relative to the economy);
- A demand for in utero plastic surgery, so the newborns (and their mothers) don't need to go through the trauma of their being ugly (choosing eye color, doing a nose job);
- A huge demand for potency enhancing products (you know, the perfect people have kids, who watch porn, and watching it makes them think that the guy must always have a hard on and the girl must always be willing - the girls can fake it; not so with guys)
There was this concept of psycho-evolution. I thought it would be a cool idea, but so far in the last 40 years it seems that the feminists mostly fall for the hunks anyway. The guys don't want the girls for what's between their ears. Today's youth reportedly have a more traditional understanding of gender roles than their parents did. You know, the guy is an aggressive predator, the girl must put up a token resistance so he won't think she's a slut, but must give in anyway. She's only there to satisfy his ego, anyway. Those are the factual trends today.
--
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
Computershack = naive noob who tosses names by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-22 04:30 · Score: 0

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 Just reading there clued me in to your lack of understanding of anything in this science Computershack. You only look at the surface of things and it is your undoing as it was there, and here in this posting.