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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.