Login

Do you care about Net Neutrality? What are your thoughts on it?

@RoamingMillennial wait, what?

Personally, I think piracy should be handled by going after the pirates, not by trying to turn private businesses (e.g. ISPs) into government-enforcement arms. The FBI does investigate criminals who are overseas but committing crimes in America. (Of course, piracy is its own hotbutton issue as to whether intellectual property laws are even well-written or are being exploited illicitly, but I will always come down strongly in favor of protecting the creator of a work's right to own the fruits of his labor. Even if that's hard to define, and there's lots of room for argument on how to achieve it.)

@Segev I agree, I don't want the government to get involved with businesses. But couldn't an argument be made that the ISPs are infringing copyright by providing access to pirated content? I do wish we could go after the ones downloading the content as well, though that's not very practical.

@Armadillo , we can no more accuse ISPs of infringing copyright than we can accuse bartenders of drunk driving. Sure, if the bartender is, himself, drunk and driving, he's culpable, but it's not his fault if a patron of his bar exits and drives off while still inebriated. Similarly, the ISP is not downloading the content. Further, the effective people to go after are those who make and distribute pirated items. Though it tends to be even more effective for the content creators themselves to come up with clever ways to make money on their works beyond simply selling access. Toy companies, for better or for worse, recognized the real money was in the merchandizing, for example. Note: this doesn't JUSTIFY piracy; this is just a practical analysis of ways to make it less of a problem.

@Segev It's not illegal to own alcohol, but it is to obtain copyright infringing content. Likewise, Walmart is not responsible if you distribute software that they sold you. ISPs do connect people to pirated content and transfer it to them. But yes, clearly intellecual property itself is difficult to make money with. That's why Disney sells all those toys or why Lucus only wanted the merchendising rights yo Star Wars and no profits.

isn't there an idea in law that says like if you let someone commit a crime without trying to stop them then you are somewhat responsible too? in regards to drink driving. but piracy is a civil affair isn't it? not a criminal one. in england perhaps.

the law and government still hasn't caught up with the internet. some business have, kinda. but they still try to enforce retarded protections - im thinking of the classic sony rootkit. and with internet piracy i go with the "obscurity is a far greater threat than piracy" idea for the creators. the publishers and record labels and distributers are middle men who know that they are basically not needed anymore and are trying to cling on with all their old-school ties :)

the internet is different to anything that has gone before, i think, although some comparison to previous things can be made - telephone networks, tv, etc.

@RoamingMillennial It wouldn't just be annoying, it would be a big shift in the philosophy of the internet. The data, the information, should be free to access, free as in freedom. If it takes regulation to do that then fine. The middlemen are fighting tooth and claw, but the philosophy of the internet age is against them.

But actually, if it restricts Americans, maybe it'd be a good thing. Then normal people can have a break :)

@ArthurM You want data to be free but are willing to resrict people to achieve it? The internet isn't some anarchist utopia, it's real machines in tbe real world. By restricting ISPs you're taking away THEIR freedom. They can do whatever they like with their network, you can do whatever you want with your computers. If you don't want your data throttled then take your computer to whatever your trying to connect to and do it directly.

@Armadillo yeah, i know what you mean. im still trying to think of an analogy but can't easily, maybe because it's an entirely new thing. probably the best solution will be not quite complete free market, on a scale from 1-10 where 1 is completely free market etc, and 10 is socialist or whatever the opposite term is nowadays, a 2 would be a sensible plan. for most things tbh. also, actually, conservatives should wanna keep it as it is? chesterton's fence??

(free as in freedom, not as in beer)

they can charge ppl to use their pipes, but they can't decide whether the water should run fast or be cleaner or prioritise Brand A water ??? something like that?? and if someone's putting poison into the water supply you go and arrest them and stop it, or if someones stealing water you go deal with them. water water everywhere.

slippery slope fallacy maybe, but i could imagine a time where your connection is owned by a subsidary of google or microsoft and it only lets you access the internet on android or windows. that'd suck.

@ArthurM Your right, it could lead to a time where microsoft has control over website access. And they should have the right to do that. They can do what they want. But yes it would be awful. And since it would be so terrible nobody would by into it, so it wouldn't be sustainable. That's capitalism. The water theory is interesting. While there should be regulations about poisoning water, thst's not comparable to the internet. Like I said it would make more sense if the government own the lines and leased them out.

monopolies tho

@ArthurM The government leasing the lines would prevent monoploies because it would mean that their time to use the lines is limited and dependant on them making money. Any other company is free to pay more and lease the lines themselves. This should be a more state level thing though, or even city/county level.m

yeah, that'd be a good plan. i forget what system we have in uk tbh. british telecom used to be government - it was spun off from the post office. they own? the phone lines and then later the broadband lines, but ppl don't have to choose bt for phone or net or tv. hmm i should probably look it up sometime.

I read Roaming commenting somewhere (I forget where) that Net Neutrality isn't a topic she's interested in covering, so we're unlikely to get a video on it from her. Which, frankly, is good if she really doesn't like the topic, because people don't make entertaining videos about subjects they dislike, as a general rule. As for me, I'm opposed to government regulation under nearly all circumstances. And the new Net Neutrality (really Net Command-And-Control) rules that started being implemented under Obama and were intended to push into ever more draconian ways of ensuring that everything was treated "fairly" (according to a bunch of biased government bureaucrats with their own agendas) would be horrible. Honestly, I'd love to see the government pulled out entirely, but I confess that there are some areas that I'm not sure how we'd privatize without it becoming a snarl. Primarily the EM spectrum we use for all wireless communication. If there isn't somebody who can say, "No, really, I own the right to broadcast on 102.5 MHz FM bandwidth in the city of St. Louis," we might well see honest businessmen and women who would negotiate such things between themselves on the basis that none want to have their comms garbled to unprofitable uselessness........but what would we do about mischief-makers who just want to disrupt things? Without legal rights to exclusively broadcast on that channel, Bob's Radio Shack could set up a white noise antenna to interfere with the radio station and nobody could say he's doing something illegal, since he has as much legal right to blot out that channel as anybody else does to use said channel. It's similar to the problems of IP, and how we determine where the government really should be establishing "you can own rights to this." We don't have the millenia of human history that physical property gives us to guide us. But ideally, we could find a way to do it with minimal government intervention.

@Segev The RF spectrum isn't part of net neutrality though. Plus since it is something that is publically broadcast in the air, it makes sense that it's governmet regulated. But if it wasn't we would invent things to improve it. For example, computers all use the same 2.4ghz or 5.0ghz bands in the same local are, but they don't interfere with each other due too MAC adresses and such.

(edited)

@Armadillo, you are quite correct that it isn't part of net neutrality. I was wandering a bit afield there in my musings.