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.'"
We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.
RIAA just won't quit will they. Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.
The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily (relatively speaking, of course) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want. There are some hiccups in a potential implementation, and it wouldn't come cheap, but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay, only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.
What they don't get, however, is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this. It doesn't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this (at least, they aren't volunteering), or otherwise contribute to making it work. It sounds more like they've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them, since they've proven to the world at large that they're not capable of helping themselves. I don't see what makes them feel they've earned the right to be "saved." It's ludicrous.
How about newspapers? Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music. Yet, advertisers have increased their dollars spent online, leaving less to be spent in papers; further, the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches, in major markets, a few million (and that's only a handful of places). Further, of those million, only a fraction will actually see the ad, since few people read every section of the paper. So, newpapers are going under all over the country, yet no one seems to be crying to save them. How about we help them out first?
you should be booted off of the internet?
The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability, particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following book. After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?
That is correct. And also the various assertions that the 4th doesn't restrict private entities.
But shutting off an entire household's internet access, let alone taking their computers, is seizure, not talk, and requires either consent or legal authority. So the 4th applies.
The police may not search your car without explicitly-stated consent. If they can see it through the windows that's fine, but that's looking, not searching. The police also may not revoke your license just because someone made accusations - the police themselves can't do it even if someone provides evidence.
The *AA's want to turn ISPs into police who _do_ have the authority to search, not merely to look, and to revoke not just your license but the licenses of everyone in your entire household just because somebody leveled an accusation.
Maybe you don't use the net much in your work. I don't much, now, but permanent team IRC or skype or AIM chats are widespread professional practice. Net access is very definitely as important to many people as a driver's license, and more so to quite a few.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
An individual has a right to self defense. Firearms give the physically weak a strong defense against an initiation of violence from others. Can you find a good reason why someone shouldn't be able to defend themselves and their families from people who threaten their lives with lethal force if necessary? That alone is a reason to defend the 2nd amendment even if all other reasons dissolve.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.