Spending money here on Earth and employing people to do something useless is throwing resources down a hole. It is destruction. That's what the old "broken window fallacy" is all about.
The important thing is that a small number of people (who fortunately have resources to risk) think this is not actually useless, even if it's not commercial viable. The "for the lulz" part is what matters. The lulz, not the jobs, is the real payoff. Best of all, while they may own the spaceship and the ores, the lulz are there for the taking, by everyone and no IP law can stop you.
These guys aren't even making excuses, they're throwing money down a hole for the lulz.
And that, BTW, is the awesomest thing ever. Fuck markets and fuck government subsidies: people want to do things. This is how progress really happens. Sometimes.
Don't let things like ANY AND ALL ACTUAL, AVAILABLE OBSERVATION ON THE SUBJECT get in the way of your perfect, uncontrovertable theory.
Uncontroverted.:-)
All someone has to do is stop keeping these observations (which would cause evolution to become controversial) a big secret. Publish them. Leak them. You don't even have to do it directly; simply suggest off-handed that someone do an experiment or take a measure of something, which will recreate the data.
Don't be the one scientist in the whole world who disagrees with evolution and has a reason; instead, be the first of millions. Take the money and the fame, or if you don't want them, then let someone else have it. But if you keep it a secret, then evolution remains uncontroversial.
Believe there is no controversy (which would be stupid, because it's a controversial topic)
Actually, if it were controversial, then by now someone would have been able to.. oh, I don't know.. state the controversy. So far, nobody has.Everybody's experiments and evidence have only confirmed it, and no one has mentioned an alternative theory. All it would have taken to cast doubt on it, would be one result or one observation.
If there were controversy, Tennessee wouldn't have needed a law to allow some hypothetical teacher let the cat out of the bag. That teacher would have been instantly famous, having destroyed something that has stood longer than even Einstein's work, and having knocked over something even more solid than what Einstein knocked over when he corrected Newton. Scientists would be gushing with enthusiasm for the first person to find anything controversial about evolution.
Even if Tennessee enshrined evolution as a religion, and punished its toppler for heresy, the prizes (e.g. Nobel) for toppling it would pay enough millions of dollars that the teacher would actually be able to defend themselves in court long enough until SCOTUS threw Tennessee's case out.
But seriously, what are the chances of that ever happening? Relativity is more likely to some day have controversy than evolution is.
I wasn't talking about what the defense should do. I was talking about what the court should do.
If it didn't exist, people would never show up to defend lawsuits.
Why wouldn't they? In grey or controversial areas they would still have strong incentive to show up. Even if you remove the insanity of "that person didn't say anything therefore the other person must be correct," defendants' chances of winning still goes up if they provide arguments.
DMCA isn't what is most fucked up here. The real problem is for default judgment to automatically mean total lack of judgment. If both parties don't show up, then for some reason the judge is required to ignore how the facts compare to the law. Justice isn't even half-heartedly attempted.
I suspect this ridiculous process is one of those things that is long-established by judicial tradition but has never been penned by any legislator, so the people have have no say in the matter.
The only merit to your argument I see is if you want to own the media long term.
No, that's one argument against building a Netflix-compatible device. Another argument is that it is illegal (and well as difficult thanks to trade secrets) to create a Netflix implementation without permission. Type "apt-get source netflix" sometimes and watch it not happen.
You say there are multiple Netflix implementations. I say there is one, because all apparently-different implementations are controlled by one party. Netflix is just another iTunes Store or XBox Live service.
Buy into their proprietary vision and you can have a satisfactory experience. I know several people who use Netflix and are happy with it, just as I know people who are happy with their XBoxes and people who are happy with their iPhones. But you have to take it or leave it. Deviate from what they allow (and this goes beyond merely long-term ownership) and you are not allowed to play the media, with the full force of law backing that prohibition.
Blu-Ray is the medium the anti-business studios use for delivering source material to the release groups. It's consumer-hostile enough to not be suitable for common everyday people, but easy enough to crack to be suitable for the release groups. The release groups then prepare the easy-to-use files for their sooper-sekrit channels and from there it goes to bittorrent for everyone.
While I can't imagine why any mass market device needs to actually play Blu-Ray discs themselves, having the capability helps to "prove" the device's bitrate capabilities. If your hardware can play Blu-Ray then it's likely capable of anything, so no mkv will ever stutter.
there are distribution channels and contracts that prevent someone in, say New Delhi, from noticing that their Addison Wesley book on Modern Evolution sells exceptionally well in the states so they are just going to set up an online store, right?
Why would this be relevant to anyone who isn't party to those contracts? The first reseller in New Dehli would be bound by that contract, but why their customer or that person's American customer?
Is this going to turn into another Blizzard EULA situation where they argue ownership of a book doesn't change hands when someone buys^H^H^H^H enters into a reading agreement?
One of the more annoying things about debates on copyright law, is that when we talk about alternative business models that do not rely on copyright, some people feel the need to insist that this means making less money -- or, even, making no money at all.
What the hell does LCK's sales have to do with "business models that do not rely on copyright?" There was nothing even slightly not-copyrighted about that video.
What was unusual (for video) is that he'll allow anyone who buys it to play it (doesn't require a DRM-compatible player). His business' doors are open to everyone who waves money in his face, rather than telling customers he'd rather they go away instead of pay. Having customers may be a novel idea for video, but Techdirt shouldn't imply this is somehow contrary to copyright. The book industry has used that business model for centuries, and the music has almost always used it (with some weird exceptions). Welcoming customers is "normal" for IP industries overall and is only exceptional within a few special cases.
Your kid might memetically infect mine with religion, leading my kid to believe that world is nothing like what it seems. For my kid's safety, I want your kid's mind cleansed.
How is the absurd idea of believing vaccines cause autism, any different than believing that serpents tell people to eat forbidden fruit or that Thetans are making you unhappy?
You have the right to be absurdly wrong and harm yourself and your children by applying that belief. It is horrible but the alternative is (subjectively) just as bad. We see a child hospitalized or even dying because of this nonsense, but some people see innocent children being Damned To Hell For All Eternity (compared to which, hospitalization and death are nearly nothing) due to not worshipping the one correct god. We let those people anguish over all the lost souls or lost course fees, so why shouldn't believers in medicine similarly suffer? It's painful, but no one said freedom would be free.
At this point, the only thing ridiculous about it is the deadline.
There is already lack of "logical hierarchy" in full hostnames and their URLs. That hierarchy ended when people started buying multiple names in more than one com/net/org and ICANN didn't bat an eye, and it was further eroded when domains started using the "cute" country codes like "tv" without being even slightly related to those countries.
Since the TLDs are already meaningless, the gates might as well open all the way. It is truly harmless.
I didn't say anything about deserving or being owed. If you're going to bring those things up, then you might as well ask why I deserve to be able to buy the disc. The answer is that I don't deserve to be allowed to buy the disc; there's simply no conflicting interest which suggests I should be prohibited from doing so.
The same goes for pirating products which aren't for sale. The purpose of copyright is to provide a financial incentive to publish. If the publishing doesn't happen, then the purpose does not exist. There's nothing to "steal."
Um.. buy the disc.. stick it in your player and watch. Whats so hard?
When I try that with DVDs, it definitely doesn't work (and never has) unless I violate the law. I put it in, mount the drive, see some directories and.VOB files, but they don't play unless I break the law. Turns out with DVDs that was fairly easy and totally undetectable. I bought DVDs and illegally played them (almost exactly as you suggest except for the illegal part) and nobody ever enforced the law (and nowdays I think there's an exemption which makes it allowed, though downloading the software is still illegal).
But with Blu-Ray it is much harder. Even if there were an exemption which made it legal to play Blu-Rays, or even if DMCA were totally repealed so that it were legal to download the software to play them, legal for the publisher to upload it to me, legal for them to sell it, and legal for them to create it (all these things are currently illegal), it still wouldn't work well, because Blu-Rays have been actively adapting to prevent people from being able to play them. Even in this hypothetical world where illegal things were legal, I would have to subscribe to constant updates of player software and someone would have to be constantly working on making those updates for every new disc.
Fuck that. DVDs were stupid but pragmatically handleable. Blu-Rays are just stupid. When someone says they don't want your money and they actively and continuously work to provide incentives for you to not pay them, the best thing to do is believe them and don't fight.
I bet the low level workers and technicians who get fired when the CEO sees revenue decreases will love your arguments for breaking copyright law.
I hope so. We should all work to make this happen as soon as possible, and I ask you to join me in getting all those people available so they can become employed in either more productive industries, or at more productive companies that aren't spending extra money to go out of their way to eliminate their own customers.
Those people already know, though, that their employer's top priority is to reach a goal of zero customers. I'm sure their resumes are already out there. The ones that don't know, maybe they're qualified to work at McDonalds. If not, there's still a welfare state and that welfare state will have greater resources to spend on people who are unable to do anything, after our economy stops wasting resources on DRM. The sooner this insanity is over, the better for everyone, from people like me, all the way to the stockholders of the companies who are currently working to minimize revenue. When I say everyone I mean everyone.
Today, if it doesn't get pushed by AppGoogFaceMicrosoft, hardly anyone notices that it exists
You are living in a subjective reality, a prison of your own construction. If you choose, the "hardly anyone" who you mention, can be everyone who matters.
Think back to 20 years ago when Microsoft looked like the main barrier to progress. The market looked just as un-enterable to people living then too. And their discouraging words were met by fogies who spoke of IBM, saying the 1990s kids didn't know how good they had it. But of course things actually were happening; they just weren't in the headlines.
You're right that there is a large market being played by AppGoogFaceMicrosoft and that little of interest is happening there, but doing uninteresting things is always how it is when you're trying to sell things to the mainstream where the big money is. This says nothing about things that are possible to work on and advance, except the sales volume itself.
This isn't even a software phenomenon. Most creative endeavors are like this. Why learn to play music when so many people are giving their money to Nickelback? Why learn automotive design when people are just going to buy Chevy Silverados? Why work on solar power when people will just write monthly checks to their local utility who burns coal? Why carve furniture with an axe, when people will go to Ikea? Why brew beer in a nation who spends so much on Bud Light? Because you love doing things, that's why, and because even if most people buy lame shit, you're still not alone.
The reason you can't use Netflix and Hulu is that the copyright holders have insisted that your money is no good. If they knew some of the money they were receiving was coming from you, they would be furious and look for any way possible to force you to take it back. They're already pissed off enough that Americans are still paying them, and they're constantly working on ways to make us stop.
Bittorrent avoids the problem. Why keep fighting to pay someone who doesn't want your business, when even greater interoperability (anything can play a avi/mp4/mkv file), higher bitrate, better uptime/reliability, and lower bills? They don't want anyone as customers, but especiallyyou.
Either switch to piracy, or come to terms with the fact that you will be playing a constant game of cat-and-mouse and escalating arms races in order to do business with someone who is playing the same game with the goal of avoiding doing business. This is Hollywood we're talking about, who practically invented the idea of accounting tricks to avoid profits. Now that everyone sees through the fraudulent accounting, the endgame is to make the lack of revenue real and if you fight them by paying, you are picking a fight with the very best, most highly experienced, brilliant losers. I don't care how bad-ass you think you are, with your tricks to make a suicidal industry have revenue against its will, but you are likely out-matched. Get realistic.
Its important to point out that at a couple bucks per movie you're rapidly approaching "blueray at the local redbox" prices.
But without all the Blu-Ray bullshit. The total cost to user could even exceed renting Blu-Rays and still be a preferable alternative. Depending on one's peeves, Blu-Rays which have lots of ads would have to become free-as-in-beer in order to become competitive.
Kernel.org was hacked, gnu.org was hacked, GitHub was hacked, BIND was hacked, and so on.
And in all of those cases, the victim was considered responsible, having done a dumb thing.
I don't think anyone is saying criminals are responsible for their crimes; it's that if our government knowing puts data in a situation where it's easily compromised, they share blame too.
If government were to legalize drunk driving and then people got killed as a result of drunk drivers, yes, the drunk drivers would bear blame. But plenty of people would also be bitching that the government did a bad thing too, and that the legislators who voted for the legalization should be fired. This isn't an unusual attitude; it's why TSA exists, for example.
They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs".
If it were that simple, the whole thing would have blown over. No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"; they've all said that evolution is the only thing that has ever been observed occurring, and there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs.
And it's when crackpots say that their ignorance is the evidence (!) which leads them to suspect (or worse: know for sure) that the FSM designs life, that scientists hand those crackpots' asses to them.
but we haven't even solved the problem of email spam
That's a much harder problem. There are all kinds of things a centralized service like Twitter could have done, which can't be (realistically) applied to email.
That would depend on the terms of service. If your broadband provider holds you responsible for the users you permit on to your connection..
It's not the broadband provider who is asking for taxpayer-subsidized resources and government power to identify people. It's someone else.
How could terms of service (agreement between you and your ISP) possibly have any bearing on who is liable to a third party when your ISP connection is used for something? If you had metered service and I used your wifi to run up a bill, I see how you'd be responsible to your ISP to pay that (though you would certainly also be interested in seeing me about reimbursing you) but I don't see how you'd be responsible for my copyright infringment, my presidential death threats, my posting of hate speech, or even pay for my Newegg shopping. Really, I can buy a new Core i7 online and if I do it from within your LAN, you're responsible for paying the bill? That's silly.
And how would a third party even know what your terms of service are? Your ISP knows whether or not you're allowed to resell your bandwidth, but how could Disney? They're not a party to the agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
I read what you quoted (link goes to a login page so didn't read more than that) but it doesn't say anything about DRM, either for or against.
Spending money here on Earth and employing people to do something useless is throwing resources down a hole. It is destruction. That's what the old "broken window fallacy" is all about.
The important thing is that a small number of people (who fortunately have resources to risk) think this is not actually useless, even if it's not commercial viable. The "for the lulz" part is what matters. The lulz, not the jobs, is the real payoff. Best of all, while they may own the spaceship and the ores, the lulz are there for the taking, by everyone and no IP law can stop you.
And that, BTW, is the awesomest thing ever. Fuck markets and fuck government subsidies: people want to do things. This is how progress really happens. Sometimes.
Uncontroverted. :-)
All someone has to do is stop keeping these observations (which would cause evolution to become controversial) a big secret. Publish them. Leak them. You don't even have to do it directly; simply suggest off-handed that someone do an experiment or take a measure of something, which will recreate the data.
Don't be the one scientist in the whole world who disagrees with evolution and has a reason; instead, be the first of millions. Take the money and the fame, or if you don't want them, then let someone else have it. But if you keep it a secret, then evolution remains uncontroversial.
Actually, if it were controversial, then by now someone would have been able to .. oh, I don't know .. state the controversy. So far, nobody has. Everybody's experiments and evidence have only confirmed it, and no one has mentioned an alternative theory. All it would have taken to cast doubt on it, would be one result or one observation.
If there were controversy, Tennessee wouldn't have needed a law to allow some hypothetical teacher let the cat out of the bag. That teacher would have been instantly famous, having destroyed something that has stood longer than even Einstein's work, and having knocked over something even more solid than what Einstein knocked over when he corrected Newton. Scientists would be gushing with enthusiasm for the first person to find anything controversial about evolution.
Even if Tennessee enshrined evolution as a religion, and punished its toppler for heresy, the prizes (e.g. Nobel) for toppling it would pay enough millions of dollars that the teacher would actually be able to defend themselves in court long enough until SCOTUS threw Tennessee's case out.
But seriously, what are the chances of that ever happening? Relativity is more likely to some day have controversy than evolution is.
I wasn't talking about what the defense should do. I was talking about what the court should do.
Why wouldn't they? In grey or controversial areas they would still have strong incentive to show up. Even if you remove the insanity of "that person didn't say anything therefore the other person must be correct," defendants' chances of winning still goes up if they provide arguments.
DMCA isn't what is most fucked up here. The real problem is for default judgment to automatically mean total lack of judgment. If both parties don't show up, then for some reason the judge is required to ignore how the facts compare to the law. Justice isn't even half-heartedly attempted.
I suspect this ridiculous process is one of those things that is long-established by judicial tradition but has never been penned by any legislator, so the people have have no say in the matter.
No, that's one argument against building a Netflix-compatible device. Another argument is that it is illegal (and well as difficult thanks to trade secrets) to create a Netflix implementation without permission. Type "apt-get source netflix" sometimes and watch it not happen.
You say there are multiple Netflix implementations. I say there is one, because all apparently-different implementations are controlled by one party. Netflix is just another iTunes Store or XBox Live service.
Buy into their proprietary vision and you can have a satisfactory experience. I know several people who use Netflix and are happy with it, just as I know people who are happy with their XBoxes and people who are happy with their iPhones. But you have to take it or leave it. Deviate from what they allow (and this goes beyond merely long-term ownership) and you are not allowed to play the media, with the full force of law backing that prohibition.
Blu-Ray is the medium the anti-business studios use for delivering source material to the release groups. It's consumer-hostile enough to not be suitable for common everyday people, but easy enough to crack to be suitable for the release groups. The release groups then prepare the easy-to-use files for their sooper-sekrit channels and from there it goes to bittorrent for everyone.
While I can't imagine why any mass market device needs to actually play Blu-Ray discs themselves, having the capability helps to "prove" the device's bitrate capabilities. If your hardware can play Blu-Ray then it's likely capable of anything, so no mkv will ever stutter.
Why would this be relevant to anyone who isn't party to those contracts? The first reseller in New Dehli would be bound by that contract, but why their customer or that person's American customer?
Is this going to turn into another Blizzard EULA situation where they argue ownership of a book doesn't change hands when someone buys^H^H^H^H enters into a reading agreement?
What the hell does LCK's sales have to do with "business models that do not rely on copyright?" There was nothing even slightly not-copyrighted about that video.
What was unusual (for video) is that he'll allow anyone who buys it to play it (doesn't require a DRM-compatible player). His business' doors are open to everyone who waves money in his face, rather than telling customers he'd rather they go away instead of pay. Having customers may be a novel idea for video, but Techdirt shouldn't imply this is somehow contrary to copyright. The book industry has used that business model for centuries, and the music has almost always used it (with some weird exceptions). Welcoming customers is "normal" for IP industries overall and is only exceptional within a few special cases.
Your kid might memetically infect mine with religion, leading my kid to believe that world is nothing like what it seems. For my kid's safety, I want your kid's mind cleansed.
How is the absurd idea of believing vaccines cause autism, any different than believing that serpents tell people to eat forbidden fruit or that Thetans are making you unhappy?
You have the right to be absurdly wrong and harm yourself and your children by applying that belief. It is horrible but the alternative is (subjectively) just as bad. We see a child hospitalized or even dying because of this nonsense, but some people see innocent children being Damned To Hell For All Eternity (compared to which, hospitalization and death are nearly nothing) due to not worshipping the one correct god. We let those people anguish over all the lost souls or lost course fees, so why shouldn't believers in medicine similarly suffer? It's painful, but no one said freedom would be free.
At this point, the only thing ridiculous about it is the deadline.
There is already lack of "logical hierarchy" in full hostnames and their URLs. That hierarchy ended when people started buying multiple names in more than one com/net/org and ICANN didn't bat an eye, and it was further eroded when domains started using the "cute" country codes like "tv" without being even slightly related to those countries.
Since the TLDs are already meaningless, the gates might as well open all the way. It is truly harmless.
I didn't say anything about deserving or being owed. If you're going to bring those things up, then you might as well ask why I deserve to be able to buy the disc. The answer is that I don't deserve to be allowed to buy the disc; there's simply no conflicting interest which suggests I should be prohibited from doing so.
The same goes for pirating products which aren't for sale. The purpose of copyright is to provide a financial incentive to publish. If the publishing doesn't happen, then the purpose does not exist. There's nothing to "steal."
When I try that with DVDs, it definitely doesn't work (and never has) unless I violate the law. I put it in, mount the drive, see some directories and .VOB files, but they don't play unless I break the law. Turns out with DVDs that was fairly easy and totally undetectable. I bought DVDs and illegally played them (almost exactly as you suggest except for the illegal part) and nobody ever enforced the law (and nowdays I think there's an exemption which makes it allowed, though downloading the software is still illegal).
But with Blu-Ray it is much harder. Even if there were an exemption which made it legal to play Blu-Rays, or even if DMCA were totally repealed so that it were legal to download the software to play them, legal for the publisher to upload it to me, legal for them to sell it, and legal for them to create it (all these things are currently illegal), it still wouldn't work well, because Blu-Rays have been actively adapting to prevent people from being able to play them. Even in this hypothetical world where illegal things were legal, I would have to subscribe to constant updates of player software and someone would have to be constantly working on making those updates for every new disc.
Fuck that. DVDs were stupid but pragmatically handleable. Blu-Rays are just stupid. When someone says they don't want your money and they actively and continuously work to provide incentives for you to not pay them, the best thing to do is believe them and don't fight.
I hope so. We should all work to make this happen as soon as possible, and I ask you to join me in getting all those people available so they can become employed in either more productive industries, or at more productive companies that aren't spending extra money to go out of their way to eliminate their own customers.
Those people already know, though, that their employer's top priority is to reach a goal of zero customers. I'm sure their resumes are already out there. The ones that don't know, maybe they're qualified to work at McDonalds. If not, there's still a welfare state and that welfare state will have greater resources to spend on people who are unable to do anything, after our economy stops wasting resources on DRM. The sooner this insanity is over, the better for everyone, from people like me, all the way to the stockholders of the companies who are currently working to minimize revenue. When I say everyone I mean everyone.
Has Netflix started using standards yet? If not, then who the hell cares.
You are living in a subjective reality, a prison of your own construction. If you choose, the "hardly anyone" who you mention, can be everyone who matters.
Think back to 20 years ago when Microsoft looked like the main barrier to progress. The market looked just as un-enterable to people living then too. And their discouraging words were met by fogies who spoke of IBM, saying the 1990s kids didn't know how good they had it. But of course things actually were happening; they just weren't in the headlines.
You're right that there is a large market being played by AppGoogFaceMicrosoft and that little of interest is happening there, but doing uninteresting things is always how it is when you're trying to sell things to the mainstream where the big money is. This says nothing about things that are possible to work on and advance, except the sales volume itself.
This isn't even a software phenomenon. Most creative endeavors are like this. Why learn to play music when so many people are giving their money to Nickelback? Why learn automotive design when people are just going to buy Chevy Silverados? Why work on solar power when people will just write monthly checks to their local utility who burns coal? Why carve furniture with an axe, when people will go to Ikea? Why brew beer in a nation who spends so much on Bud Light? Because you love doing things, that's why, and because even if most people buy lame shit, you're still not alone.
Good point, I overgeneralized.
The reason you can't use Netflix and Hulu is that the copyright holders have insisted that your money is no good. If they knew some of the money they were receiving was coming from you, they would be furious and look for any way possible to force you to take it back. They're already pissed off enough that Americans are still paying them, and they're constantly working on ways to make us stop.
Bittorrent avoids the problem. Why keep fighting to pay someone who doesn't want your business, when even greater interoperability (anything can play a avi/mp4/mkv file), higher bitrate, better uptime/reliability, and lower bills? They don't want anyone as customers, but especially you.
Either switch to piracy, or come to terms with the fact that you will be playing a constant game of cat-and-mouse and escalating arms races in order to do business with someone who is playing the same game with the goal of avoiding doing business. This is Hollywood we're talking about, who practically invented the idea of accounting tricks to avoid profits. Now that everyone sees through the fraudulent accounting, the endgame is to make the lack of revenue real and if you fight them by paying, you are picking a fight with the very best, most highly experienced, brilliant losers. I don't care how bad-ass you think you are, with your tricks to make a suicidal industry have revenue against its will, but you are likely out-matched. Get realistic.
But without all the Blu-Ray bullshit. The total cost to user could even exceed renting Blu-Rays and still be a preferable alternative. Depending on one's peeves, Blu-Rays which have lots of ads would have to become free-as-in-beer in order to become competitive.
And in all of those cases, the victim was considered responsible, having done a dumb thing.
I don't think anyone is saying criminals are responsible for their crimes; it's that if our government knowing puts data in a situation where it's easily compromised, they share blame too.
If government were to legalize drunk driving and then people got killed as a result of drunk drivers, yes, the drunk drivers would bear blame. But plenty of people would also be bitching that the government did a bad thing too, and that the legislators who voted for the legalization should be fired. This isn't an unusual attitude; it's why TSA exists, for example.
If it were that simple, the whole thing would have blown over. No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"; they've all said that evolution is the only thing that has ever been observed occurring, and there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs.
And it's when crackpots say that their ignorance is the evidence (!) which leads them to suspect (or worse: know for sure) that the FSM designs life, that scientists hand those crackpots' asses to them.
That's a much harder problem. There are all kinds of things a centralized service like Twitter could have done, which can't be (realistically) applied to email.
It's not the broadband provider who is asking for taxpayer-subsidized resources and government power to identify people. It's someone else.
How could terms of service (agreement between you and your ISP) possibly have any bearing on who is liable to a third party when your ISP connection is used for something? If you had metered service and I used your wifi to run up a bill, I see how you'd be responsible to your ISP to pay that (though you would certainly also be interested in seeing me about reimbursing you) but I don't see how you'd be responsible for my copyright infringment, my presidential death threats, my posting of hate speech, or even pay for my Newegg shopping. Really, I can buy a new Core i7 online and if I do it from within your LAN, you're responsible for paying the bill? That's silly.
And how would a third party even know what your terms of service are? Your ISP knows whether or not you're allowed to resell your bandwidth, but how could Disney? They're not a party to the agreement.
Somewhere in Time isn't considered "new" Maiden? Shit, I'm old.