Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing
Presto Vivace writes "Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing.' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment. 'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said. ... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business. If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.'"
The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.
-- Cheers!
I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.
So what they're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace? Yeah, that makes sense... in bizarro world. The FCC is being maligned for being a "liberal" establishment, but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets: They're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era. Or, put another way -- they want a bailout.
Yes, how very liberal of them. /snark
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Quoting: "Internet service providers should have authority to block subscribers from sharing music and other files without permission of the copyright owner, the RIAA said."
I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.
It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..." Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc? Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others, so should your internet packets. It isn't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
They can do that now, but if net neutrality law prevented them from throttling P2P traffic then a "copyright infringement" loophole might enable them to block all instances of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. anything sent over P2P) rather than actual copyright infringement.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
That RIAA, MPAA BSA etc. are dangerous terrorist organizations conspiring against the constitution of the United States of America and several other western countries.
They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people. If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi, KGB or NKVD.
It's not Blockbuster's job to make sure I don't make copies of the movies I rent either.
It's not my power company's job to make sure I'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Lets see more reasons for YOU to donate, join, contribute to the EFF and other organizations working for your rights online.
Being forced to pay for content consumed is a far cry from involuntary servitude.
Being forced to expend resources policing your network so you can report crimes might qualify as involuntary servitude, though I think that is a stretch too.
There are much better arguments against what the RIAA is proposing than this 'its slavery' nonsense. Proposing something this far from rational just makes you, and everyone on your side of the fence, look irrational, and weakens your position overall.
You aren't helping. Please, stop.
The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.
IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!
Err, yeah. And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes, not assault rifles.
I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large, not just the web, but your argument just plain sucks.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.