Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet Your Rights Online

RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing 173

Presto Vivace writes "Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing.' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment. 'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said. ... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business. If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • by Skarecrow77 ( 1714214 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @01:37PM (#30791486)

    Most people, even intelligent people, seem think that the US bill of rights is an invisible coat they wear everywhere they go in the real world or in cyberspace, and that it applies to them however they want it to apply to them.

  • by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @01:39PM (#30791516) Journal

    There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

    The 14th amendment says otherwise. Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @02:04PM (#30791732)

    Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.

    For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.

    The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.

    I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government, would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @02:11PM (#30791798)

    The 4th ammendment says:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Note that at no point does the ammendment state that the restriction applies only to governmental entities or actions of the government.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  • by emaname ( 1014225 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @02:27PM (#30791940)
    From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009
    Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?

    JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May. And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.

    JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration. And I think that slowed things down. Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem. I don't happen to agree. I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...

    JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?

    JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals. []
  • by sexybomber ( 740588 ) <> on Saturday January 16, 2010 @02:28PM (#30791956)
    Quite right, but there is one amendment that applies to everyone, governments, corporations, and private citizens alike: the thirteenth.

    "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    It's a Hail Mary, but the argument could be made that, if the RIAA has their way, we'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up every time we hear, see, or think of a copyrighted work. Actually, it could be argued that many corporations, the record companies included, treat the American people like a resource to be exploited, not like their gorram customers.

    Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery. Did I just pull a super-Godwin?
  • by rastilin ( 752802 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @02:32PM (#30791990)

    I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.

    Actually it's a bit worse than that, because "permission of the copyright holder" is code for "our permission". Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack "permission from the copyright holder". The RIAA doesn't check it owns the actual rights in the first place, and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16, 2010 @03:00PM (#30792172)

    Your post definitely shows that you have not received a decent education in the law nor in the Constitution. Barron v. Baltimore clearly said that the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. That was the entire reason the FFs passed them was so that they would limit the Federal Government. In addition, the only reason they apply to the states is because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to Gitlow v. NY. They do not apply to private individuals unless they are acting in the capacity of the state, which is a very high hurdle to meet.

  • by colinrichardday ( 768814 ) <> on Saturday January 16, 2010 @04:51PM (#30792994)

    No, The Bill of Rights begins "Amendment I.", and "Congress shall make no law" is in the First Amendment. Had the authors of the Constitution wanted the Constitution to be as you suggest, they could have written:

    Congress shall make no law:

    [list amendments]

  • by Montezumaa ( 1674080 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @06:59PM (#30794064)

    The Bill of Rights are also applicable to the states, by way of the 14th amendment. If you had actually "studied" constitutional law, then you would know this. There is a highly likely chance that a federal court will soon find that the second amendment is also applicable to the states, even though some try their hardest to believe otherwise. An internet education does not replace a real educatoin.

    Also, D.C. vs Heller was already decided, for your information.

  • FFVII (Score:3, Informative)

    by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @08:41PM (#30794864)

    It's FFVII, you insensitive clod!

  • by genner ( 694963 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @09:44PM (#30795200)

    Civil war? When did that happen? I just never stay up with current events....

    If you llive in certain parts if the south you might know it as the war of northern agression.

  • by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @11:17PM (#30795706) Journal

    So you think that no one should be able to carry a gun in public because there's law enforcement? No. If someone tries to mug, kill or rape someone in public, the victim has every right to shoot the fraker. Period. Police get there after the fact, They aren't there during the crime.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17, 2010 @01:25AM (#30796198)

    There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

    The 14th amendment says otherwise. Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.

    I'm the originator of the post to which you replied. Obviously, I'm aware of the 14th amendment. But you must be aware that there is STILL ongoing debate about which amendments apply to the states. Here’s some quick info: I used the example of the 2nd amendment. Do some reading on McDonald v. Chicago. I'm originally from Southern Illinois, a pro-gun rights advocate, and interested in constitutional law (aside from studying it in school). So naturally, I’m following this case closely.

    The US Constitution may be the highest law in the land, but the US Supreme Court interprets the law. And they are continually doing that. To say that 14th amendment ended the debate on incorporation of the Bill or Rights is denying legal history and what is happening as I type this reply.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen