Obama wants to make the internet a utility

2003TIDE · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
I guess you'd feel the same way about anything? Child porn, etc.?

Agree to disagree, then.

You can bring child porn in the argument if you want. It's not the ISPs job to police it. Just like child porn isn't an acceptable reason for the FBI to have access to iPhone encryption keys.

Do you want to hold gun manufacturers accountable for gun deaths? Same argument.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

2003TIDE said:
Do you want to hold gun manufacturers accountable for gun deaths? Same argument.

Not at all the same argument - holding a firearm seller accountable for knowingly selling firearms illegally wouldn't bother me one bit. That's a closer analogy.

And I agree it's not the ISPs job to police content, but if they find a site riddled with illegal material, why should they be forced to transmit it? Do they have no rights as a business?

Jon · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
Not at all the same argument - holding a firearm seller accountable for knowingly selling firearms illegally wouldn't bother me one bit. That's a closer analogy.

And I agree it's not the ISPs job to police content, but if they find a site riddled with illegal material, why should they be forced to transmit it? Do they have no rights as a business?

then you might as well shut down the entire internet

this is essentially your argument

2003TIDE · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
And I agree it's not the ISPs job to police content, but if they find a site riddled with illegal material, why should they be forced to transmit it? Do they have no rights as a business?

Does DMCA not allow the framework to do what you are asking without involving the ISP's? Like I said ISP's just need to worry about transiting packets.

Look I get where you are coming from, but I really don't think we should put that burden of enforcement on the ISP's.

2003TIDE · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
Not at all the same argument

I disagree. ISP's transit packet's they they know may be illegal. Gun manufactures sell guns they know may be used to kill someone. Not that different.

In your argument BitTorrent would be the gun dealer. The ISP would be the gun manufacturer.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

2003TIDE said:
Does DMCA not allow the framework to do what you are asking without involving the ISP's? Like I said ISP's just need to worry about transiting packets.

Not really, as the DMCA only really has legs in the US. If there's a server in China or Russia hosting illegal materials, there's little the DMCA can do.

Look I get where you are coming from, but I really don't think we should put that burden of enforcement on the ISP's.

Again, I've not said I thought it should be their burden - I just think it's their right if they wish to stop traffic to sites with illegal content. They've built the infrastructure, they should be able to determine as to whether it's used for illegal activity. I know may here think that means we may as well pull the plug on the internet, I don't have such a 'slippery slope' opinion of it.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

2003TIDE said:
I disagree. ISP's transit packet's they they know may be illegal. Gun manufactures sell guns they know may be used to kill someone. Not that different.

In your argument BitTorrent would be the gun dealer. The ISP would be the gun manufacturer.

Sorry, I won't continue to argue this after this, but again, your comparison is off. The ISP doesn't manufacture anything - if you really want to make an analogy work, they'd have to be the shipping company or maybe the gun dealer. Trying to equate them with a creator of content makes zero sense.

TIDE-HSV · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
Sorry, I won't continue to argue this after this, but again, your comparison is off. The ISP doesn't manufacture anything - if you really want to make an analogy work, they'd have to be the shipping company or maybe the gun dealer. Trying to equate them with a creator of content makes zero sense.

OTOH, Comcast is both a creator of content (through NBC), they are also a distributor. They will now be in no holds barred competition with other creators of content (Netflix), who must distribute through them...

rgw · Dec 15, 2017

I just lean towards the side of lesser profits for IP holders v. open telecom's entrepreneurial and small-business benefit to people with innovative ideas. This just creates one more way that all entry into the internet marketplace requires massive venture capital from people who will sell your dream off to Comcast, Disney, CBS, etc as soon as the charts say they're maximizing their RoI. I want to see venture capital die because people nurse passion projects into primary income businesses over time. This change will make that even less likely to happen.

Of the stuff you have spoken to CA, I only care about the child porn and going after the individual who is in our borders is definitely something that is practical for that offense. IP concerns? Whatever. I don't think policy goals should be primarily about increasing the surface area of profits even if I philosophically agree with IP protections. Businesses never profited 100% of the time anyway. People have stolen stuff from retail stores. Copied ideas. What have you. I don't see why we should be doing irreparable damage to a communication commons to try to create the first marketplace in human history that has zero theft.

rgw · Dec 15, 2017

Understand, I'm a software engineer. The very nature of my job hinges on abstract concepts having extrinsic value. I'm not an anti-IP person. I lean towards a more open, better internet in this country because I think it is the one way left we can revive our ailing rural economies.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

rgw said:
I just lean towards the side of lesser profits for IP holders v. open telecom's entrepreneurial and small-business benefit to people with innovative ideas. This just creates one more way that all entry into the internet marketplace requires massive venture capital from people who will sell your dream off to Comcast, Disney, CBS, etc as soon as the charts say they're maximizing their RoI. I want to see venture capital die because people nurse passion projects into primary income businesses over time. This change will make that even less likely to happen.

Of the stuff you have spoken to CA, I only care about the child porn and going after the individual who is in our borders is definitely something that is practical for that offense. IP concerns? Whatever. I don't think policy goals should be primarily about increasing the surface area of profits even if I philosophically agree with IP protections. Businesses never profited 100% of the time anyway. People have stolen stuff from retail stores. Copied ideas. What have you. I don't see why we should be doing irreparable damage to a communication commons to try to create the first marketplace in human history that has zero theft.

It humors me that you don't see the disconnect in the bold above. If you don't mind IP theft, then you don't really care about 'passion projects' changing the world, as IP rights are the only reason big companies don't simply steal their new product ideas.

And nowhere have I advocated what you're suggesting with "I don't see why we should be doing irreparable damage to a communication commons to try to create the first marketplace in human history that has zero theft" - I've simply stated that the ISP should have the right to block sites that have stolen IP. NOWHERE have I posted they should be forced to block those sites, or that it's their responsibility. But it's their infrastructure, their investment - so if they choose to not be part of a massive theft ring, they should have that choice.

rgw · Dec 15, 2017

Well I know one thing, the system they've asked for through lobbyists is an overreach if their goal is to protect their assets. If the concern is about IP protection, ask for laws that allow for ISPs to proactively block content within a very narrow scope such as intellectual property but with a clear complaint/appeal structure built in for the customer.

Youtube can identify a song playing in the background on a computer while you talk to the camera and mark your video for the record label that owns the song WITH NOTHING MORE THAN ALGORITHMS. There is the capacity to protect IP without handing them the rights to do just whatever the heck they want in the name of their profits.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

rgw said:
Well I know one thing, the system they've asked for through lobbyists is an overreach if their goal is to protect their assets. If the concern is about IP protection, ask for laws that allow for ISPs to proactively block content within a very narrow scope such as intellectual property but with a clear complaint/appeal structure built in for the customer.

Youtube can identify a song playing in the background on a computer while you talk to the camera and mark your video for the record label that owns the song WITH NOTHING MORE THAN ALGORITHMS. There is the capacity to protect IP without handing them the rights to do just whatever the heck they want in the name of their profits.

Agree 100% with all of this.

TIDE-HSV · Dec 15, 2017

uafanataum · Dec 15, 2017

If some one uses a baseball bat to commit murder we do not sue the bat manufacturer because it was manufactured to hit baseball's. If someone accidentally ruins someone's life in a f150 accident we do not sue Ford, nor do we hold them responsible. If someone smokes crack and it kills them we do not hold the company that made the lighter to smoke it liable though there have been many cases where the dealer of the crack is liable if proven in the court of law. Why is it that the dealer is liable even though without the the source of fire they would not have smoked crack? Is it because the lighter is capable of providing flame for other things while crack can only be used to break the law? If so, what does that say about breaking the law on the internet? Since the internet itself is just a multi-use tool does that make it the lighter?

chanson78 · Dec 15, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
Again, I've not said I thought it should be their burden - I just think it's their right if they wish to stop traffic to sites with illegal content. They've built the infrastructure, they should be able to determine as to whether it's used for illegal activity. I know may here think that means we may as well pull the plug on the internet, I don't have such a 'slippery slope' opinion of it.

You however forget to take into account that these same providers are using their lobbying apparatus to keep other startups and even municipalities from competing.

If their infrastructure hadn’t been funded with taxpayer dollars (link) or they hadn’t sued to prevent municipalities from investing in their own infrastructure (link) your argument might hold water. The argument that they own the lines, therefore they get to determine what goes across it, is specious as they are additionally gaming the system to ensure no one else can put down their own lines.
Think of it this way. You are essentially saying that it is perfectly ok if the US Mail opens everyone’s mail to ensure that nothing illegal is being passed. Never mind the fact that there is no probable cause.

BamaFlum · Dec 15, 2017

Could Congress (if it were willing) pass a law to limit the dangers listed here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NationalTitles18 · Dec 15, 2017

BamaFlum said:
Could Congress (if it were willing) pass a law to limit the dangers listed here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but they are too busy with bending us all over a barrel.

rgw · Dec 15, 2017

Hellworld ain't got time for things getting better. Everything is only getting worse from here boys and girls. Don't let Mr. Milquetoast Senator winning here fool ya.

crimsonaudio · Dec 15, 2017

chanson78 said:
You are essentially saying that it is perfectly ok if the US Mail opens everyone’s mail to ensure that nothing illegal is being passed. Never mind the fact that there is no probable cause.

Nope, I'm simply saying that they should be able to block traffic to certain sites if those sites are riddled with illegal content. I've said this over and over. Sites like BitTorrent are openly known to be massive IP theft sites - no snooping required. So if they choose to block access, I've no problem with it, just as I'd have zero issue if they chose to block a site that served child porn.

I'm not sure how you guys are missing what I'm saying here, I've said it the same way over and over. I've not once advocated packet snooping, mandatory filtering, etc - I've literally only said the company should be allowed to block sites that are riddled with IP theft if they choose to.

Obama wants to make the internet a utility

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Administrator

Suspended

Suspended

Administrator

Suspended

Administrator

Senior Administrator

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!