Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The RIAA is now worried about the FCC's rulemaking concerning Net Neutrality. Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography, so they want to make sure that spying on and filtering internet traffic is okay, so long as it's being done for a good reason, even if it doesn't work correctly and blocks non-infringing content. Incidentally, the RIAA has some justification to lump child pornography and copyright infringement: after all, people might infringe upon the original cover art for the album 'Virgin Killer,' which featured a naked under-aged girl in a way that some consider pornographic. The copyright on it belongs to RCA Records."
It's hard for me to tell if this is a different aspect of RIAA's disconnect with reality, or if there is really a fundamental disconnect of what the First Amendment is out.
No - this is perfectly in line with the logic behind dehydrated water.
Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
The RIAA wants to protect their copyrighted child porn?
Equally rapacious and soulless - they make their own reality and expect everyone else to live it. The RIAA is a classic case study on the influence of the private sector on governance.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
They're trying a Glenn Beck. Now they can make the implied accusation that by supporting net neutrality, you support child pornography.
I can hear the arguments now, "We need to prevent net neutrality, FOR THE CHILDREN!"
People might share videos explaining how to build bombs with an RIAA copyrighted music in the backgroup :O
RIAA does not care about child pornography. They're hiding behind the issue. They want to be able to claim that those who oppose their position hate children.
No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.
The RIAA knows that they won't find much sympathy anywhere if they ask for a carte-blanche on traffic spying just to catch a few illegal MP3's, so they just throw in child pornography, for good measure.
Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.
This isn't even funny anymore.
In a letter sent today to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the RIAA and other music trade groups expressed their concern[...]
The only sane answer is: "To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded. I have no interest on educating either profile on the reasons why your statement is manipulative, false and idiotic."
Each day that passes I value education more. If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.
Time to vote like a Pirate in the upcoming election in Sweden.
And for you non Swedes, blog about this madness, and support your local Pirate party.
Pirate Party tried to have this discussion in Sweden, but it failed miserably, you can not discuss that some people always jump on the 'And for gods sake, save the children!' to stop what ever they don't like.
A comic book translator was convicted for Anime/Hentai pictures, cause as he said him self "The girls had to small boobs".
Pirat Party even had to add a section in its political program "about the right to posses any kind of information", to include the statement: _ not including documented child abuse _
I can think of a lot more additions that should have to be added, if every impossible miss interpretation should be covered.
Madness!
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say
little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically
so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say
there!
now i may rest assured that whatever your opinion before reading my comment, i have now inexorably swayed you to believe as i do, simply by reciting the magic words that trumps all debate, argument and rhetoric
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:
Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography
Let's suppose they do start "filtering" content there will always be a way to circumvent it.
It comes to a point where if you stand against it you are then branded a "sympathizer" and thus becomes politically incorrect to oppose it.
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
Unfortunately not nearly enough people question the motives of the Government & their commercial "bed fellows".
They're not making any money off it, why the hell does the RIAA care? Are they pretending to be the DA now? Is the DA pretending he's riding on the wing of justice for copyright infringement?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I don't want firewalls or spam blockers at my ISP filtering things out. I want a copper wire or fiber connection from "the Internet" into my house and I'll decide what I want to filter. If users do want these services from their ISP, I don't think there's anything that would stop them from hosting these applications and having users turn them on and configure them for themselves. As long as it is the customer deciding which content is filtered we have no problem.
And why don't they just infiltrate the CP networks the same way someone addicted to children would do ? Internet is a gold mine of informations, and there is no way you would search a week without finding something. There is even some little boys lover web sites that their domain name is crystal clear. In Quebec, a radio station reported a website known as "La garconnière" which you can translate to as "The bachelor's pad". This website is an OPEN forum of mature guys talking about little boys they see in the park and their fantasies with them. Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet" And they say they need the ISPs to track them down ? yeah right.
No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.
The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces. Instead, the unwashed masses are (shock and horror) voting with their wallets, taking matters securely in-hand..
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Exactly, what is spam to my ISP isn't necessarily spam to me. Oh, we see this other company is soliciting you for an alternative internet service that just rolled out in your area and you may or may not have signed up for said notice.
Marked as: SPAM
Status: DELETED
I'm not saying ISPs do this on a regular basis, but if it even happened once, it would be too many. We're not even scratching the surface of the potential for abuse in other areas that your ISP would rather consider spam.
Except everything you just said is a lie. Network neutrality has always allowed reasonable network management, including spam blocking, firewalls, etc. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the issues involved in network neutrality? And who on /. modded you up for it?
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
This reminds me of the episode of "The Office" where Michael Scott becomes butthurt about something and dresses up as Jesus, interrupting people and telling them they're going to hell. The only non-moron in the group tells him he can't push religion and he responds that he either has to push religion or push drugs.
The RIAA is "The world according to Michael Scott" in a nutshell and taken to an extreme.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces
Right...because NOT doing anything about it seems to have worked oh so well.
Instead, the unwashed masses are (shock and horror) voting with their wallets, taking matters securely in-hand..
And, like any mafia acts when denied money, they start pushing people around and generally being dicks.
Glad you approve of the RIAA's actions. (sensationalist, I know...but so is a blanket statement referring to government as a "babbling retard". How's that lead-free paint workin' for ya?)
Living With a Nerd
I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.
That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.
The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"An Internet predicated on order, rather than chaos, facilitates achievement of this goal."
The Internet has always been chaotic, you never needed to lease lines to any particular point. Everybody can go everywhere at any time over any protocol, that chaos has been the core of its success. That all the users can access mylittlestartup.com just as easily and quickly as they can access megacompany.com has been a massive boom to competition and innovation for corporations and social media for individuals. That is the essence of net neutrality.
The kind of order and regulation they want is to kill Internet as we know it, a system where ISPs get to siphon off the profits acting as the middle men that direct online sales was supposed to avoid. It's to stifle competition leaving only approved, incumbent content providers who pay their way to access the market. What they aim at, despite not saying so, is that to filter anything you must force everything into a few, known formats and protocols you know how to filter.
Child pornography is a red herring, those that deal in that will never let themselves be forced into the confines of such filtering as there are ways like password protected files that prevent any automated filters. What they seek to prevent is to kill off the open marketplace, all those that do not go through a "legitimate" label like themselves but instead offer it up independently. They want every site of user-generated content like YouTube to drown in the cost of being their copyright enforcers. They want to return to the 80s when radio and TV ads determined what people would buy. Do not let them try to turn the clock back.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The lobbyists have made it pretty clear before that they are very much willing to exploit child porn to push through their own crap. Here's Christian Engstrom's (Pirate Party MEP) blog entry: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/
Excerpt from the minutes of the meeting between the Internet and the RIAA:
"We'll let you have your silly "net neutrality" as long as you agree to all of our demands, the first of which is there will be no net neutrality. Now that we've got that taken care of, the next item on the agenda is "Money: You Must Give Us All of Yours". Thoughts? Or shall we just take it directly to a vote of the board, which is us?"
You are welcome on my lawn.
*blows 4chan whistle* Anonymous! Get 'em!
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:
Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
We dont see the RIAA wanting AT&T to get involved because someone makes a phone call and plays a copyrighted piece of music through the phone. Why should AT&T need to involved when someone sends a copyrighted piece of music through the phone lines using a different protocol? (HTTP over TCP/IP over ADSL vs raw voice audio)
Copyright law has had clear steps in it for how to go after someone who is infringing your copyright ever since it was first passed all those years ago. And the law also clearly spells out what you can do if you believe your copyright has been violated and you have some kind of link back to the person but you dont know their name.
Of course, the real problem is that the "evidence" the RIAA (and their hired lackeys) collect is good enough to be able to send vaguely worded threatening letters but not good enough to actually stand up in court.
It Will make it a LOT harder for the RIAA to take people to court for any allegedly infringing copyright downloading, because there would be a quite reasonable argument to presume your internet connection is being protected by such a filter from infringing content.
RIAA and the industry behind it are bound to vanish soon, so they have nothing to lose anymore and they can use any means they wish to gain small wins before the destruction. The problem is that the stupid laws they push will bug people for decades after the nowadays media industry has been buried and forgotten.
Almost every dying meme or institution works in a same aggressive and self-destructing way. Look at the news.
People love "reasons" that are really justifications, like calling someone a pedophile or a racist. It doesn't matter if it's true. The herd's so afraid of being associated with child porn or racism that they freak out and ostracize the person. That way, you don't have to censor them or jail them. You can just socially isolate them, which in turn bankrupts them as their business or job prospects collapse. It's 100% effective.
You think Virgin Killers is bad? Try that Blind Faith album they don't stock in stores anymore even though it has Eric Clapton on it:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F4qeGnsXL._SS500_.jpg [NSFW!]
Futurist Traditionalism
Am I the only one who thinks she looks like a Praying Mantis? It's as though that character has mantis wide-screen eyes to afford greater ability to find things to bitch about.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
If they catch you in the backseat, trying to pick her locks, they're going to send you home to mother in a cardboard box. You better RUN! RUN! RUN!
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Mutually-Assured Destruction. Or "If I can't have it, neither can you."
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
NN sounds great on paper but if the plan is to have the Feds to it fairly - dream on. I'll take my changes with corporations over the FCC any day. A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.
Dear Troll,
Re-read my post minus the stick up your ass, if at all possible.
Guess I have to spell it out: "Shock and horror" was located within parentheses to convey the comically effeminate "well I never!" attitude of both the RIAA and government toward the fact that people would decide against being pushed around.
Why would you assume I'm _not_ on your side? You just got gored by Occam's Razor.
Fond of kicking goals for the other team, are you?
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I am shocked. Truly, deeply shocked.
Not that the RIAA would try this, but that anybody here is surprised.
You know what would be funny? Suppose Google wanted the congress to finally enact laws to help protect Net Neutrality (NN, from now on). They knew the government isn't doing anything and after the Comcast case, NN was in jeopardy.
So what to do? They team up with one of the big wireless carriers (AKA Verizon) and make up a not-so-bad-but-also-not-so-great deal and that way they have a force major backing up NN. Now there are two options:
1) People will like the deal and it will be pushed forward -> A good option.
2) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being voter-minded will jump on the bandwagon (and having a big company like Verizon supporting NN doesn't hurt also) and push to enact said laws -> A great option!
So now you have Google, which (for the sake of this post) really does want complete NN as it always said, making a move that is a win-win situation for the NN group. Brilliant!
I know, to convoluted, but a nice scenario neverthelss.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
This goes hand in hand with the new freedom of speech law I've introduced which makes you free to say anything that doesn't disagree with me.
Golf claps to you, good sir.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I actually like my mail provider to mark what he considers spam. However I wouldn't want him to delete the message without my consent.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net while your at it?
Re-read my post minus the stick up your ass, if at all possible.
::removes stick, rereads post::
Guess I have to spell it out: "Shock and horror" was located within parentheses to convey the comically effeminate "well I never!" attitude of both the RIAA and government toward the fact that people would decide against being pushed around.
Retcon. Your post clearly implied that government intervention would be a waste of time and that only the will of the people could do things to improve the situation.
The widespread piracy rates and lawsuits thrown around by the RIAA prove your point wrong.
Why would you assume I'm _not_ on your side?
The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces
I believe that's called "answering your own question".
You just got gored by Occam's Razor.
Don't you mean sliced? Or maybe cut?
Living With a Nerd
this
In fairness to roaches, that's pretty much my entire agenda also.
Bad way to argue. Better say: "Copyright protects child porn!" It's of course a bull shit argument, but it links copyright to child porn, instead of contrasting it to child porn, as your argument does. And most people will not think any further anyway if they hear "child porn".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Please educate yourself on the issue. The various bills that groups have been pushing provide just as I described.
Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time.
That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.
The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...
You, sir, now just deeply offended all roaches in the world by comparing them to RIAA!
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
This has been one of the problem with net neutrality since the various groups started pushing for a law. It would prevent network operators,ISPs, from blocking spam, setting up firewalls to prevents outside attacks, or even from having an e-mail virus scanner.
I have no problem with any of the above being done to my connection, so long as I can switch all of them off depending on my needs. If I can't switch it off, it's not a service to me, it's a restriction.
They do care, they have a history of collecting royalties for works they have not rights to, cp is just another venue to exploit...
I'd just like to point out that without the government's help the RIAA couldn't exist.
If copyright regulation were not being grossly warped by the government then there would be no way that the RIAA could wield the power that it does.
This isn't an issue of a free market run amuck, rather it's a perfect example of a badly regulated market favoring the establishment and being unable to change with the rest of the world.
In an actual free market all it would take is consumers voting with their wallets to change the market.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Stay away from my water.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
If the lost iphone case was any indication, yes, they can.
The RIAA is arguing that net neutrality, if adopted, must not go so far as removing all means to enforce intellectual property rights. Go ahead and disagree. But if you were hoping to net neutrality to be passed in a form that abolishes the DMCA, get ready for a disappointment because the balance of power hasn't changed much, if at all, since it was passed.
Then said bills have not been about Net Neutrality.
I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.
Orly?
Perhaps you should do some googling, before claiming that RIAA can't raid your house, or put you in jail.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070117/163531.shtml
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4385453-1.html
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/11/albumbase-down/
http://features.rr.com/article/0bAa6maaGCexM?q=North+Carolina
http://www.riaa.net/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2004&resultpage=&id=482BFD6A-C0C6-71B2-F544-6E181B92A80A
Personally, I would just LOVE to have RIAA invade my home, my place of business, or even to just shake me down at a flea market or some such thing. I'm armed. SOMEONE will die. Hey, it could be me. But, the day that a RIAA rent-a-cop kills a US citizen over a civil matter, all hell will break loose.
Come on, RIAA - try to take me down. I can't lose.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's just like lobbyists to jump on legislation and corrupt it completely.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
As any media can be encoded, encrypted and compressed in an unlimited amount of different ways, there's an infinite amount of bit combinations that should be filtered out of our internet connections.
As an unlimited amount of bit combinations should be filtered out of our internet connections, data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections.
As data shouldn't be allowed through our internet connections, we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place.
As we shouldn't be allowed to have internet connections in the first place, we should just go to the fucking movies and pay them their fucking due.
Just wait until all of Nirvana's songs are filtered out as well... they had naked babies on their album covers, after all. Pirating pedophiles, the lot of you!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Just toss in the words "Child Pornography" & "Baby Killers" and we have instant vote approval for limiting constitutional rights. I guess "domestic terrorism" has lost it's shine, so it's back to protecting the helpless fetuses and children of America.
I can't see how NN impedes the RIAA from filing civil suits against IP infringers?
Does this mean I won't be able to buy the Blind Faith album from iTunes?
Yes. Let's just add "terrorism" in the mix while we're at it.
No...
Yes. You are both correct.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
Who put DVD John in jail? I pretty much chalk that one up to the MPAA.
You're both wrong.
RIAA and their proposed "net neutrality" that blocks sites I want to see, is precisely why we need to put power into the hands of the citizens to make their OWN choices. (i.e. Verizon sucks, I'm switching to Virgin Mobile or ATT or Cricket or Clear or Sprint or AppleISP or.....) We need to stop treating citizens as too stupid to make their own decisions, and stop giving politicians the role of surrogate parents. Neither they nor their corporate bosses can be trusted.
We can only trust ourselves. That's where the power should lie.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No problemo, lets just redefine Net Neutrality. Tada..
From now on, Net Neutral shall describe Communications where
Harmful Content (Terrorism, Child Pornography) is Neutralised.
they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
Why are they emphasizing the child porn? After the scenes of incestuous child masturbation, full-frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and the close-up of a girl's "hairy monster" that came from the movie "Babel", they could have just left out the "and" statement.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Well now, those bills probably did come about under the guise of network neutrality. Network Neutrality is about a lot of things, and it's tempting to simplify it to "don't do anything to my connection (other then, you know, actually deliver stuff to me)". But it's not that simple. UDP is not TCP, and there are a lot of good technical reasons why an ISP would influence their traffic. But it's ripe for abuse. And doing so in selective ways where the motive is only profits and doesn't benefit the customer is blatantly wrong.
By the way, who wrote those bills, where can I read them, and did they ever have any real traction? Cause any loon can submit junk to his rep. Seriously, will_die, gimme a link showing a proposed bill that prevents an ISP from blocking spam. Otherwise you're just spouting general fears that have no real basis in reality. It's good to mention those sort of fears, least we stumble into them, but "Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time." is just plain wrong. That's one specific sort of a breakdown of NN that everyone in the know wants to prevent. Yeah, even now.
No, it so only the government can filter, NN is big because the Obama gang of thugs want to keep those that love liberty, freedom, and America to be controlled, while their communist propaganda is spread to all the uneducated drones that live in the 19 states he won.
You forgot the last one:
3) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being contributor-minded, will give the plan lip service but dawdle around until after the election, at which point they will gut it to the liking of their favorite lobbies and declare mission accomplished.
Google's idea was to hand Congress a ready-made compromise with industry support on a silver platter, and hope like hell they will do something with it, because whenever Congress tries to make compromises by themselves they always cave to the biggest elephant in the room.
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
You're being irrational.
Regulation enables groups with lots of money impose whatever controls they like over a market through lobbying.
That's why the whole concept of "Net Neutrality" is such a farce. The only neutral net is the one without external controls. Introducing a control overlay and then thinking no powers with vested interests are going to take over the controls, is just madness.
"Net Neutrality" is all about imposing a definition of neutral crafted by a small panel of people in Washington. Is that really neutral?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I actually like my mail provider to mark what he considers spam. However I wouldn't want him to delete the message without my consent.
They do it all the time. End users think Google is great because they never see any SPAM. They're bound to be missing some HAM or HAMMY-SPAM, but what they don't know apparently doesn't hurt.
The question we need to ask the RIAA is: 'Should child pornographers pay the RIAA if they use RIAA music in their productions?'
If the answer is no, then why the fuck should the evil ones get a free ride while the rest of us have to pay.
If the answer is yes, then ask 'So how much of a revenue stream would the RIAA like to see from kiddie porn royalties?'
Really? Is that true?
To me, no. Not at all. My ISP should not be blocking spam or providing a firewall. Perhaps if I select and pay for those services, yes; but it is my email provider who should be blocking spam, and it should be my router which runs a firewall. I expect my ISP to deliver 100% of the packets addressed to my IP, even if they carry hack attempts or spam. I can, of course, pay for the additional services of filtering out certain content if I want, but that isn't Net Neutrality that's just buying a service. Another service I could select would be protection from DDOS attacks
Net Neutrality is the notion that the ISP should be delivering all of my packets by default, with no filtering by default.
Perhaps I'm not using the phrase in the way most people use it. Would others care to weigh in with what you think NN means?
Well, if in the end we get option 3, we're no worse than where we started.
P.S.
And a small correction: In option 2 I should have said "vote-minded", not "voter-minded". Politicians worry about votes before anything else. They try to please contributers because they bring money that can help them get votes. They don't really care one way or the other about voters or contributers, only votes.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
>>>>>The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces
>>
>>Right...because NOT doing anything about it seems to have worked oh so well.
You're right. The government should do something - namely revoke the monopoly they gave Comcast* in the first place. That way other companies could come in and compete with alternative internet services (like FiOS). - You decry the problem without seeming to realize that government Caused the problem themselves (by giving comcast a monopoly).
*
* Replace comcast with whatever monopoly serves your area
* Cox, cablevision, time-warner, et cetera.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>The congress, being voter-minded will jump on the bandwagon
Congress didn't listen to the voters when polls showed over 80% were against the Bush Bailout Bill and nearly 80% were against passage of PelosiCare, so what makes you think they'll start listening to voters now?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" has been around for a while, or the FCC recommendation from earlier this year or even the Verizon plan from earlier this month. They all contain a statement dealing with "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider". SPAM, viruses and all those things mentioned are lawful content in situations and for an ISP or network operator to block would be illegal.
The only ISP-level filtering that should be "okay" is that which the customer specifically asked for and that which is mandated by law.
The first is a no-brainer, if I want to pay my ISP to filter out porn before it reaches my kid's computers, or I want to pay it to filter out spam or viruses before they reach my network, no law should prevent it.
The "legally required" filters should be on a datum-by-datum basis and require a court to determine that the particular piece of data to be filtered is illegal per se. For example, if there was a particular kiddie porn making the rounds via torrent, a court order to specifically block those bits would be reasonable. Blanket rules that would require the ISPs to decide what is and is not kiddie porn, a virus, or a terroristic threat are un-American and an unreasonable burden on ISPs. They also interfere with the rights of customers who will be victims of false positives. Worse, they introduce a chilling effect on people who don't want to be watched.
Besides, filtering based on what data looks like simply won't work on well-encrypted traffic or sufficiently-modified traffic. A court order blocking badkiddieporn.jpg would be useless if two computers were exchanging it over a secure end-to-end encrypted link. I'm assuming the link itself is not compromised of course. If it is, then it's not a secure end-to-end encrypted link.
Off-topic:
Hello to the FBI agents who keyed in on a certain word in this message. Move along now, nothing for you to see here. I was very very tempted to "link" that jpeg to a random police agency or a random worldwide church whose headquarters are near Rome but I decided I didn't want to risk arrest or excommunication.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Come on, RIAA - try to take me down. I can't lose.
Too bad that's only true from a certain point of view. It only works like that because if they strike you down, you will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
They wanted to say "I reject your reality and substitute my own" but they were afraid it would result in a public explosion (plus it's copyrighted by the TVAA but I think it's a minor detail they would be willing to ignore).
No matter how transparent their intend are, or how wrong it is, they'll get what they want. I can't find any congress critters that aren't already bought and paid for.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Because of statutory damages. Their lawsuits absolutely depend on those. That is how they get their monkey-fuck retarded large awards. In the event those didn't exist, well then their lawsuits would amount to fines, as they should. The max actual damages you can possibly argue is $1/song, since that's what they sell for. You can argue the damages are less, but you can't argue they are more (and courts have already found this). Now in civil court, tripling of damages is pretty common when they are trying to punish one party, like they believe you willfully and knowingly downloaded the songs without permissions. So in that case you have 100 songs, you'd be on the hook for $300.
Sounds fairly reasonable, kinda like a traffic ticket: Enough to sting and make you think twice, but a reasonable amount. Well that would work for the RIAA because it isn't scary, and because it wouldn't be worth their money to pursue the cases. Fortunately for them, there are unconstitutionally high statutory damages specified by law. Means you don't have to even prove any actual damage, and you can still get up to $250,000 per incident because congress passed a law saying you can.
You probably meant "Force majeure". Sure, it's French for "force major", but if it's written in French, it has that certain Je ne sais quoi...
Hey, it worked for ISO/microsoft, it should work for the RIAA.
if they include filtering of ANY kind?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the law should SPECIFICALLY exclude deep testing of media streams, just to piss them off and cause them all to die of heart attacks and strokes. because we can't send silver spikes to the heart through our present data packet systems.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The phone system is government NN. Please give an example of a problem with the NN on the phone system? How did the government cause this problem? How would the private sector have done it better?
I find being offended by me offensive.
Isn't this somewhat similar to how Google demanded open access provisions for the 700mhz spectrum as long as they were a bidder, and they made their first token bid before letting carriers buy it up with said provision in place? Them Google folks don't employ a bunch of smart people for the hell of it.
Viruses are lawful content? In what situations?
This is a chicken-and-egg issue. The government would not have warped the copyright laws in the first place, if it hadn't been for industry lobbying. So it's really "the market" influencing government in its own self-interest, not government influencing the market. At least that's how it started out.
True, but donors have a longer memory than voters, and that money can go places other than just the campaign, if you get what I mean ;)
...here, all I can say is that it makes the RIAA look incredibly dumb to try to speak of "neutrality" while at the same time asking for provisions that limit the use of the internet in any way. A quick look at the definition of neutrality on M-W Online shows that basically means taking a hands-off approach. What the RIAA asks is not a hands-off approach at all. And quite frankly, they should know better than to even pretend to speak about things in terms of "good intentions" as nothing they do has anyone's intentions in mind but their own and their shareholders.
Okay smart guy, what do you propose then? Because we all know that without some kind of intervention, all ISPs will begin to make alliances of their own and filter this and that, and don't you dare say anything about the customer "choice" because we all know how little choice there really is among ISPs. If you want cable internet, you're stuck with whoever rules your service area. DSL is only slightly more open to choice, and is much slower than cable in almost all aspects. Fiber is limited to FiOS and Uverse. Not many wifi only ISPs to choose from either.
So again I ask, what's your brilliant plan here? Do we all just tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our internet goodbye? Spend more money buying from different ISPs so we can switch connections based on whoever provides the fastest service to the sites we want to see?
Here's an idea, how about naysayers such as yourself STFU until you've got a sound solution, instead of just decrying the evils of regulation? If you aren't part of the solution, then you're clearly just part of the problem.
You mean charity, welfare, helping poor countries, etc. right?
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Eeeeexactly...
I'm sure the RIAA really cares about Child Pornography.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Okay smart guy, what do you propose then? Because we all know that without some kind of intervention, all ISPs will begin to make alliances of their own and filter this and that
How do you KNOW that will happen, since it has not? The reality is that if it DID happen people wouldn't use those services, they would use other services. Even though the choice of ISP's in America sucks there IS still some degree of choice for most people, especially now that using a cell connection for internet is feasible.
You are all trying to prevent against a mythical monster that would have and should have come upon us by now. Until you can explain why it has not, you have no business screwing over the internet that until now has worked just fine, thank you very much. Otherwise you add WAY more potential for greta harm to befall the internet in your rush to put reigns over it and hand them off to Washington.
If something like Net Neutrality comes to pass, I am going to work my ass off to insure that every single controlling interest does in fact get the controls they desire over your network traffic, so that you can feel as early and as much as possible the full impact of the choice you have made. RIAA filtering? I'm first in line to write comments in support of same. Blocking all torrent traffic? I'll stand outside picketing for the cameras in response. ISP's required to do deep packet inspection and forward right to whoever wants to examine them for infringement or illegal uses? Hell, I'll deliver those packets by hand.
Only by revealing at once the full amount of pain you are about to impose on every internet user in the U.S., can we all avoid the boiled frog syndrome and get over this phase of ignorance that regulation is in any way helpful to customers.
Here's an idea, how about naysayers such as yourself STFU until you've got a sound solution
Why is having the way things work as they do today is not sound? What is the ACTUAL (not potential) problem with the way things are?
I imagine you very much would like me to "shut the F*ck Up" since you have no rational argument against this otherwise, and must resort to crude verbal assaults.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think net surfers should form an association and demand that the FCC allow the surfers to filter out advertising and SENMACE (senmace.com) propaganda targeted at the surfer.
research at the least
You're arguing that an ISP should get charged when they block a virus from spilling over into the internet... when it's a researcher's pet?
Dude. wtf? No. That's a meaningless distinction. ISPs can block viruses and spam. (well, some do what they can). Even with the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act", they'll still be able to legally do what they're doing now. What you're arguing against, does not exist. It is a strawman. If you think otherwise, then your bias has spun your comprehension into oblivion.
I'd just like to point out that without the government's help the RIAA couldn't exist. If copyright regulation were not being grossly warped by the government then there would be no way that the RIAA could wield the power that it does.
The RIAA existed long before they got this kind of power through the DMCA. Copyright laws were warped because the RIAA already had power. The DMCA being passed at all demonstrates the power that lobbyists have in Congress.
So RIAA/save the children assholes are Retarded (pretty much the nicest term I can use here) enough to think that Possessing/downloading/watching on youtube/etc 'Illegal' Music/content in any form =
Posessing/Downloading Child Porn now? So Every time I go to youtube to listen to a song I lost the CD to, I am now being flagged as a 'child endangerer'..... I thought Jack Thompson was Bad.... At least his ilk never linked violent video games to child porn....
- Damian Ichabod ('Psychotic Fury' Song Writer) - www.reverbnation.com/#/psychoticfury
It's impossible to say "what would have been better". Has it improved? Very little. Is it overpriced and in many locations technically antiquated? Yep. (Which makes it not so neutral) Does the Government abuse the phone system to monitor its citizens? You bet. How about radio? Television? The FCC has a scary history of censorship and fines in the name of a moral majority. The content of the web isn't the Government's business but NN will be interpreted as an open invite for old guys in suits to make it their biz. Also, the FCC's track record on confronting the Federal Government on corporations or spy agencies violating rules isn't very good. A great theory handed over to a bad organization isn't going to benefit anyone.
The point is I think we should be very prudent before allowing the Government the power to force NN. I'm not saying it sounds bad or would be bad, I just think it is something to be considered with an objective and skeptical mind because there is no "undo" button on Government. Plus it is hard to argue that proper activism and awareness have been fully exercised before making this drastic step. Government is a crude club that should be used as a last resort.
I think we can combat this via our dollars instead of giving these giant corporations a single government entity to lobby they should be lobbying us. ISPs are in business to deliver information, not doing so is bad press, bad business and narrow thinking.
None of that addresses your point that I responded to.
How has the government fucked up NN with the phone system?
I find being offended by me offensive.
I believe the FCC not enforcing its own policies addresses how NN is/will not working with the phone system. A law is only as good as who polices it.
One example: AT&T and Verizon and others were implicated in aiding the NSA wire tap in 2006 illegally but the FCC ignored it.
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1610&Itemid=125
If the FCC can't be trusted protecting their own phone system policies, getting them to police NN and not be swayed by politics and special interests is a dream. A great idea being handed over to a bad heavily lobbied and corrupt organization isn't going to help.
Besides the FCC simply being a bad cop to rely on - innovation will suffer. Land line phone companies have invested very little in innovation and their networks. Reduced demand and income (from people that WOULD pay more for tailored access) and loss of people that think they pay too much for minimum access and just canceled the service - means less money for re-investment in the network. Our phone system has little flexibility to adapt itself price-wise.
Imagine if ISPs were required to support only one dial-up speed initially; Or had no flexibility to price points of entry and no ability to have ISPs tailor non-neutral (paid) content to offset their costs to lower entry-level prices. (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)
One could attribute the radical Internet growth a decade ago to the lack of NN, not the need for it.
That's not NN. That's 4th amendment.
Do you have any example of how the government fucked up NN with the phone system?
I find being offended by me offensive.
That is like asking what books censorship stopped from being written. It's not what they made wrong it is what they made impossible or unlikely. You want to apply NN as a concept without looking at practical application of it. (And who applies "neutral")
The phone system has built in the ability to regulate traffic that the Internet simply doesn't have. (i.e. Erlang model) NN is a physical practicality in the phone system and a near-term impossibility on the Internet.(At this time) And ignore the FCC abuses all you want - that is who you are inviting into this mess.