http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in _the_US is what I found with a cursory glance to the US state of Net Neutrality. I guess there is currently no law to restrict such behavior, but there have been some proposed. I think that ISPs are attempting to keep things neutral until the debate has been finalized. From a legal standpoint, I would think there is going to have to be some allowing (perhaps requiring) of ISPs to restrict illegal activities on their networks, or who would enforce those laws? On the other hand, an internet where sites that compete with my ISP for certain services is restricted or a site that criticizes my ISP or its parent or affiliate is censored would be a real shame indeed.
I agree. This seems to be exactly what the Net Neutrality laws were put in place to prevent. ISPs cannot restrict access to particular applications. It is crucial that this kind of thing happens. We can't have Comcast restricting who ever they they want to. If BitTorrent or BitTorrent's users are breaking the law, that should be decided in the courts, not by Comcast. And if Comcast is restricting an application's use, it seems to me to be a violation (at least in principle) of the Net Neutrality laws.
Agreed that the normal metrics of supply and demand don't hold here as the supply is endless. Still Artists and record companies have the right to try make as much money as they can. CDs typically had a few songs that you liked and a few that just came along. Charging the same price for each song will result in people only buying the songs that are worth more to them than that single price threshold. Artists stand to make more money if they sell all their songs and even if the few top ones are maybe priced a little higher. If companies really want to make money, they'll charge prices based on each user's individual preferences. That way when Rupert Murdoch wants that 1 Super Murdoch Tune, he has to pay $1000 for it. I think I remember Amazon getting in trouble for charging different people different prices for things though. This new approach might be some sort of compromise between fixed prices and individual by individual pricing. Whether this will result in more music enjoyment for more music buyers at less money is beyond me. (Probably not).
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in _the_US is what I found with a cursory glance to the US state of Net Neutrality. I guess there is currently no law to restrict such behavior, but there have been some proposed. I think that ISPs are attempting to keep things neutral until the debate has been finalized. From a legal standpoint, I would think there is going to have to be some allowing (perhaps requiring) of ISPs to restrict illegal activities on their networks, or who would enforce those laws? On the other hand, an internet where sites that compete with my ISP for certain services is restricted or a site that criticizes my ISP or its parent or affiliate is censored would be a real shame indeed.
I agree. This seems to be exactly what the Net Neutrality laws were put in place to prevent. ISPs cannot restrict access to particular applications. It is crucial that this kind of thing happens. We can't have Comcast restricting who ever they they want to. If BitTorrent or BitTorrent's users are breaking the law, that should be decided in the courts, not by Comcast. And if Comcast is restricting an application's use, it seems to me to be a violation (at least in principle) of the Net Neutrality laws.
Agreed that the normal metrics of supply and demand don't hold here as the supply is endless. Still Artists and record companies have the right to try make as much money as they can. CDs typically had a few songs that you liked and a few that just came along. Charging the same price for each song will result in people only buying the songs that are worth more to them than that single price threshold. Artists stand to make more money if they sell all their songs and even if the few top ones are maybe priced a little higher. If companies really want to make money, they'll charge prices based on each user's individual preferences. That way when Rupert Murdoch wants that 1 Super Murdoch Tune, he has to pay $1000 for it. I think I remember Amazon getting in trouble for charging different people different prices for things though. This new approach might be some sort of compromise between fixed prices and individual by individual pricing. Whether this will result in more music enjoyment for more music buyers at less money is beyond me. (Probably not).