ISPs Will Now Be Copyright Cops 338
An anonymous reader writes "Wendy Seltzer, Fellow at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy, talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers to 'crack down on what users can do with their internet connections' using a 6-step warning system to curb online copyright infringement."
6 Warnings (Score:5, Funny)
Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.
Re:6 Warnings (Score:5, Insightful)
Did your keyboard break? You forgot, "so my neighbors don't loose their connections".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think their connections are already too loose.
Just like the "war on drugs" (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.
Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X" (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.
If you're of noble birth and choose to make most everything illegal, than you've made most everyone else your slave. Make knowledge illegal and their children and children's children become slaves. Make chiropractic schools illegal and you've made Dr. Bob your new court jester.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bread and circus my friend... There is a third option however... DEATH by Lawyer... I don't think you want that option, as it involves listening to readings of out of date law books for weeks on end while being cut 1000's of times by legal briefs filled in patent and trademark cases... among other things... works wonders at gitmo... woopps... I didn't say that....
Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X" (Score:5, Insightful)
A symptom of having a society that actually governed by rule of law
The idea behind the rule of law is that the law is codified and impartial, as opposed to rule by individual humans who can make different decisions based on how they feel. Now, take a look at the current US legal system, where the outcome of a court case depends to a large degree on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, whether you make a good impression on the judge, and which judge you happen to appear in front of. Does that really sound like the rule of law to you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the cat kills every mouse, the cat will die. The cat only needs to catch enough mice to sustain it's lifestyle. I think it is a very accurate analogy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but the age-old approach to social ills has not been to actually find a cure. Instead, people are satisfied with the sense that there is a cosmic balance between crime and punishment. So as long as there are victims to crucify, the war on drugs, piracy, terrorism, abortion, homosexuality etc can be considered a great success.
Those with a conservative mindset are even opposed to real solutions if they break the cosmic balance. Giving condoms to teens (no baby as a punishment). Removing poverty from func
Re:Just like the "war on drugs" (Score:4, Insightful)
People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.
Nobody cares about that. The whole idea here is to give new pretense to to spy on people and knock their doors down. Make everybody subject to arrest and their equipment subject to seizure. Yeah, just like the war on drugs, which is still proving to be very profitable, so don't expect much change there.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but it seems that as long as lawyers can make more money with something, we're stuck with the game.
Re:Just like the "war on drugs" (Score:4, Informative)
What's troubling to me is, if I think I'm downloading The Station's "Fingertips" [archive.org], I'm far more likely to download Stevie Wonder's completely different song with the same name, even if I may loathe Wonder's music.
Yet another of the RIAA's tools against lost revenue; revenue lost to their competition. TFA (either disingenuously, ignorantly, or stupidly) claims this is a loss to the economy, which is an unmitigated lie. The economy loses NOTHING when you download. When you download that copy of Photoshop that you could no way in hell afford, how has Adobe lost anything?
AND, Piracy generates revenue. As Doctorow says in the forward to one of his books (which I read for free), nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. He credits his standing as a New York Times best seller to the fact that he gives his books away for free on boingboing.
I was at the library yesterday. I checked out Charles Portis' "True Grit" and Fred Pohl's "All The Lives He Led" (I thought Pohl was dead, but he's still writing, this is a new book), two DVDs and two CDs, and it cost me the price of gas to drive two miles. Did Portis and Pohl lose any money because I'm not paying to read their books?
I have dozens of books by Isaac Asimov. Without libraries, I'd never have bought a single one of them. I see no difference whatever between the internet and the library, especially since my library doesn't have to even own a book for me to check it out; there are interlibrary loans.
The RIAA and MPAA are the real pirates.
Beg to differ... (Score:2, Interesting)
ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.
Perhaps if the creators and providers of "content" were able to devise a workable business model, there'd be no need for ISPs to be coerced into inspecting customers private data?
Just a thought.
Re: (Score:3)
ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.
Oh god - yes. Please! That's the way it should have been in the first place.
Re:Beg to differ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If encryption gets banned, there is an ally that the bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters *will* listen to.
Go to the NRA. Seriously. Strong crypto was classified as a munition, making crypto a Second Amendment issue. Congress doesn't give a shit about the ACLU or the EFF or any of those types, but they will listen to the NRA.
Re:Beg to differ... (Score:5, Funny)
If encryption gets banned, there is an ally that the bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters *will* listen to.
Go to the NRA. Seriously. Strong crypto was classified as a munition, making crypto a Second Amendment issue. Congress doesn't give a shit about the ACLU or the EFF or any of those types, but they will listen to the NRA.
Somehow the thought of Sarah Palin encrypting a moose just doesn't work for me.
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware that a lot of ISPs are also either subcompanies or at least somehow affiliated with copyright holders, yes?
Re: (Score:3)
ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.
Just to run through a mind experiment...perhaps that is the goal of the ISPs? "Hey, we can't police the traffic, it's encrypted, so we're not going to bother even trying anymore unless you, $big_name_copyright_holder, provide the dough to do so."
It just popped into my head? Dumb? I don't know, but it's a thought.
Sigh (Score:2)
Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?
Re: (Score:2)
Resurrecting? Who declared it dead?
Packet radio is still in use. Plus with the advances in WiFi (802.11n looks pretty decent, speed-wise) and antennas becoming cheaper while we're talking, I guess we needn't even return to PR. WiFi will work just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not dead, but hardly in common use anymore. Mesh networking would work great over short distances, but in anything larger than a subdivision, you're going to need a longer range link.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?"
That's gonna make for some slow torrents!
Re: (Score:3)
For non-commercial, unencrypted torrents, packet-radio is a (slow) solution. Encrypting and/or distributing commercial information is specifically banned by the FCC on the amateur spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
True- though it makes me wonder why. With encryption hardwired into so many things now, why does the regulation still stand?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But think of the latency!
I don't know...I can drive pretty fast...
Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer (Score:5, Insightful)
She explicitly said that "study after study has shown that those who pirate the most frequently are also the ones who are willing to pay the most for legal access to that copyrighted material." And then she also pointed out that it's disturbing to see the conglomeration of media companies and service providers like NBC-Comcast.
I like this lady, and I hope she manages to make those points to others!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I decided to look for more info about her on Princeton's website, and she definitely deserves massive respect. You can read a bio about her here: http://wendy.seltzer.org/shortbio.html [seltzer.org]
She works in support of the internet users, even heading up a website that helps internet users understand their rights when they receive cease and desist threats. I like her too.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem doesn't stop there. This will be helpful for governments to track whistle-blowers, so I don't think the "tracking" feature will go away. And since the media industry is also feeding lawyers and the penitentiary system, everybody is happy.
16billion in loses? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:16billion in loses? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an understatement. They've made claims that are greater than the GDP of the entire world.
The latest research (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear, *NOBODY* claims this behaviour is true of *ALL* P2P filesharers.
However all the studies (other thn marketing propaganda by The **AA) clearly show that *OVERWHELMINGLY* most filesharers end up actually *BUYING* significantly more music.
And by MORE I do mean
Re: (Score:3)
You mean losses due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org] don't you??
Huh... (Score:2)
So, I guess NO one reads/watches TFA.
Google. Try it, folks!
Really, though, six mailings/warnings followed by throttled bandwidth doesn't do much, that I can see, apart from the 'we're watching you' vibe. It'll just be a shot in the arm for the VPN market.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of servers in plenty of countries that would be more than willing to host a VPN and or SSH-based proxy for a fee. Sure, it may require higher latency, but that's not too much of a problem.
Only a problem where monopolies exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most ISPs also are content providers so they see it as using their control over their internet connections to increase the revenue of their content. This is why content carriers and content producers should never be allowed to be the same people.
Re:But why do ISPs care? (Score:5, Informative)
ISPs are not common carriers, they were granted some of the benefits that common carriers get but without the obligations.
Plan? It's already started (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.
He was in violation of Cox's Acceptable Use Policy:
http://ww2.cox.com/aboutus/lasvegas/policies.cox [cox.com]
(these policies are the same for all Cox service areas generally)
First, from the intro:
"Violation of any term of this AUP may result in the immediate suspension or termination of either your access to the Service and/or your Cox account."
See section 6 (Misuse of service),
"You may be held responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through your account or IP address, even if the misuse was inadvert
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright holders won't shut up as long as they think there may be even one person they could get money from that they aren't. The only way around that is to get rid of copyright. (or I suppose, you could get rid of the copyright holders, but that gets messy)
Re:Plan? It's already started (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the fact that yes, infringement exists, but there is a substantial part of their "audience" that is just plain tired of their crap and have abandoned them. They don't go to movies, they don't buy CDs (that aren't used old stuff), and they don't buy DVDs/Blu Rays... and there's nothing worth torrenting for them. :)
When that group becomes a majority, somehow, some way, these asspiles will figure out how to monetize the ability NOT to watch or otherwise consume their "content." I bet someone's already drawn up a plan, piled some cash into a vault, and put the red button behind a glass cover that says "break only in the event that people stop caring about our crap."
I have seen 1 movie this year in the theater, Thor. It sucked. So I avoided the rest of the movies. I just haven't given a shit for a long time, but now, I'm pretty much done wasting my time. I've got better things to do than to make these pricks richer. For those who continue to do so, I don't mind. I just won't do it. One day, though... you'll get tired of the same, rehashed shit and simply tune them out. I never thought I would, but then again, their efforts to stomp on my liberty hadn't gotten this bad yet.
Uh, SSL? (Score:2)
So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.
Problem solved.
Re:Uh, SSL? (Score:4, Informative)
Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.
You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.
Re:Uh, SSL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.
You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.
Simple enough. Find a provider that will give you some server space with shell access and install OpenVPN. Then use OpenVPN to obscure your IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure that provider is beyond the reach of a MAFIAA subpoena.
Re: (Score:3)
They only have to show a preponderance of evidence if it goes to court, the ISPs are under no such obligation.
Re: (Score:3)
So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.
Problem solved.
I know you know this, but let me restate an important fact for everyone else who is new to your suggestion. For torrents of enough value, "unlawful infiltration" by you, the downloader / (lawsuit target) is just as simple as "lawful infiltration" by they, the copyright owners... since everyone can pose as a sharer in this SSL encrypted "anonymous" environment.
The internet is a little weird with this respect: we have the illusion that you don't know the sharers, and they don't know you... unless "they" happ
just plain absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.
If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.
Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country! In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Protip: If it is possible to sign away your rights, they aren't really rights and your country isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.
If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.
Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country!
If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?
Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?
No. They can't refuse service if I'm a minority. They can't discriminate against me. They can't take part in anti-competitive behaviour. They can't break about 100 other laws, either.
They certainly can't bar me from service, based upon insufficient proof either... that opens them to suit. In a free society, I have rights too, you see... not just mega-corp.
In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.
Yep - but you probably signed away that right when you agreed to your ISPs TOS.
Yeah, it sucks if someone wants to pay ISPs to play copyright cop. But given who the MAFIAA has in their pocket (remember, you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"....) I don't see any realistic way that's going to change any time soon.
I've never, in my entire life, signed a contract with an ISP. TOS is *not* a contract, but 'terms of service'. It's one sided, and basically a docu
DMCA was passed by unanimous consent (Score:3)
you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"
The D is for digital. If you mean Democrats, remember that the DMCA made it through both houses of the U.S. Congress by unanimous consent procedures. This means both Republicans and Democrats were for it. I think I know why that is: nobody gets elected without MAFIAA help [pineight.com].
I suppose we should be grateful (Score:2)
I just wish all the various tentacles involved could get with the program.
Legal options = less piracy! (Score:2)
They must understand they are now selling content, not a continous shedule. People will pick what they want to watch and everything else is nicely filtered out by their PVR's or simply not downloaded.
Give users a proper option with easy subscriptions and a system that works for distribution and they will pay. That means no insane prices where a simple episode cost the same as a mo
Common carrier status (Score:2)
The moment AT&T and the "major" ISP's do this, don't they loose any chance at ever claiming common carrier status? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I understand any of the telecom laws... but it seems to be as soon as they filter for copyright they can be held libel for anything they didn't filter for...
Re:Common carrier status (Score:5, Insightful)
That never has existed for ISPs and lately, the biggest ISPs have dreams and intent on being content providers as well. If they hope to get you to pay for streaming content, they need to limit your access to free materials in whatever forms. So they are not interested in common carrier status. This is precisely why we need network neutrality laws firmly in place... of course, if someone were to try to get it passed, there would be so many little tweaks in there it wouldn't even resemble the original intent. (Look what happened to Obama's healthcare reform... it might have been nice.)
Re: (Score:2)
How.... (Score:3)
I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet; essentially I will be paying for this 'service' to the RIAA and the MPAA, this is not what I consider customer service, I predict this will increase the use of encryption, which will in turn spawn legislation that deems secure encryption illegal. Pretty soon they will want 'virus and copyright compliance software' installed on all systems non-supported operating systems will not be allowed on public networks, etc... tin-foil hat folks don't have to be wrong, they just have to wait long enough to see their 'crazy' views realized.
Am I missing something? (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless though, I just don't see any way for the ISP to filter/detect copyrighted content without actually intercepting and analyzing the traffic on the wire.
Something seems to be wrong here. We would all be shitting our respective pants if the phone company stated they would be listening to our phone calls, or if the post office said they would be reading our mail...but we're not worried that our ISP is analyzing our private data packets, we're only worried what they do with the info?
Re: (Score:2)
Since I live in Canada I am not certain.
However it is because it has to do with the fact that your phone company is a Common carrier. Which means that they can not listen in on your phones with out a warrent. You can sue if you relise they do.
However the company can not be Sued because you used its phone lines to order drugs, or to assassinate someone.
Same with the mail.
Since the isp said'no fucking way' to common carrier. I am not sure why they would.
Is it time for net neutrality yet? (Score:3)
Without net neutrality firmly in place, we are going to see lots of things we can and cannot do with our internet connections. They should be a common carrier and indemnified for the content carried across them just like phone companies. Instead, we have content providers owning the internet links... we have an ugly future ahead if things doing get changed radically.
3 of 6 half a dozen of the other (Score:3)
ISP's have no police power and locking someone out from access to any given service--particularly if they've paid the statutory damages for whatever infringing they've been shown to have committed--requires police power. And it does not seem like even if they did have that power that it could be used to accomplish any of the "strikes" that are described in TFV.
Question (Score:2)
Could you not sue you isp if they threw you off the connection?
Since it seems they would in fact be violating the DMCA? Since in a sense they are breaking the safe harbor rules?
As well as breaking the contract to provide service to you the customer.
Since the isp's were desperate not too have the 'common carrier' status that in a sense would protect you the user as well as the provider from any of these sorts of things.
Would this also not smack of the Riaa that is merely a disgruntled 3rd party. So why wou
Freenet will be more popular (Score:2)
Yes, it's slow but it gets better every year.
Responsibility is an awesome thing (Score:2)
Does this mean we can hold ISP responsible for everything and sue them for spam or phishing and other things?
Offline File Trading (Score:3)
In your face, BITCHES.
Where there's a will, there's a won't.
Download what you can, NOW. Form networks with friends and start LAN parties. Ethernet LAN parties were cool back in the day of 14.4 modems. Now with ISPs acting like a bunch of dickwads for the fascist entertainment overlords, we need to organise around and without the net. It is no longer the resilient rhizomatic object of freedom - it is now the arboretic albatross of commerce.
Please moderate your tone (Score:5, Informative)
RTFS? (Score:3, Informative)
talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers
Not her plan, she's just talking about it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Again. Doesn't make it any less stupid, inane, or fucked up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, other than some stupid bitch?
Dude. Google. Your friend. Try it.
"Sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT."
I'm fairly certain the 'stupid bitch' is probably in the ISP's sights, as well.
TFA. Read it.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, not some stupid bitch. But it's still customary to describe a person's relation to the topic being discussed, and her position at Princeton means absolutely nothing in the context of this. Nor any explanation is given (by summary, interviewer or her) what kind of "plan" is this -- some kind of contract-backed policy decision, lobbying for a law that would make it mandatory, or two guys from AT&T and Comcast discussing it over beer.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this an interesting choice of story for the hijack trolls to decide to try to bury?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The person "Wendy Seltzer" seriously needs some fiber in her diet.
Works are based on other works (Score:5, Insightful)
As an artist, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all.
All works of authorship are based in part on other works. Would you want to get your Internet access cut off for having inadvertently included too much of someone else's work in your own work?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's probably true to some extent in all works of authorship, but it's not justification for dismissing income protection via copyright for someone who creates (for example) a new interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays - let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?
I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "
Re:Works are based on other works (Score:4, Insightful)
How about holding that income protection for a term so that the artist who created it will be long dead before it expires?
How exactly does that encourage the artist or the artist's heirs to produce?
Re:Works are based on other works (Score:4, Interesting)
For some reason your post inspired this new copyright scheme, in which you can choose to either have a short copyright and benefit today, or a long copyright and only your heirs will benefit:
You can set your copyright length as long as you wish. HOWEVER, all income (gross, not net) from that property goes into escrow for the duration, and you do *not* collect interest on the escrow funds (we could argue what to use them for, but reading-education programs sounds reasonable for a start.)
The incentive would therefore be to set copyright for the shortest possible period, during that first major market interest (which is when the majority of profit is made anyway) and only in rare cases would it be worthwhile to hold copyright through a secondary sales period.
A further alternative under this scheme is that you could choose to treat it as a work-for-hire for the public, with no copyright protection whatever, and collect all the money you can from day one (just like a regular job!) This might incentivize smaller publishers as well, since the competition would really be to get the product in front of the buying public, just like any other goods.
The tax code could also be structured to benefit those who choose a shorter or absent copyright period.
Re: (Score:3)
When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions, and the DMCA is completely repealed, I'll be with you, really with you. Until then, I will always choose the option that costs Hollywood the most money. If I think that the media lobby will benefit in any way then "no sale". For me there is no ethical dilemma with regard to copyright, it's black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions...
That would be better, but not ideal. Books should be longer, because they make so much less money. And any work that earns more than a certain profit should have its copyright term shortened, because the purpose of incentivizing production no longer exists after, for example, you have a 200% return.
Re: (Score:3)
Books should be longer, because they make so much less money.
They also cost a lot less to produce. My publisher uses the three-year sales projections to decide whether a book will be popular enough to bother publishing. I think for fiction most use five years instead. That means that, by the end of five years, the publisher has made enough money to cover all of their costs (including the advance to the author, salaries of editors and proofreaders, printing, distribution, and advertising) and made a profit.
Most books have a curve with a sales peak around the se
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'd respect your right to seek redress for actual monetary damages. I'm definitely OK with you having that right for the 28 years it ran prior to the 1970's. I'll go farther than what you had under pre 1976 law, and support a few additional legal priniciples:
1. I support you having a right to extend a suit to include triple actual damages where there are certain aggravating circumstances, such as commercial infringement for profit. I sort of support those same increased penalties for non-commerc
Re:I'm Glad For This (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you happen to have sold out to a big enough publisher (of any kind) capable of bribing the ISPs, they will not care about your valuable content being "illegally" copied.
Re:I'm Glad For This (Score:5, Insightful)
It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright has become in our society. I'm all for just abandoning or totally revising the concept altogether.
As an academic, I'm dismayed that research up to 70 years old and paid for with public money money can just be locked off for no reason at all. And that the essential right of citizens to acess the public internet can be interdicted by private corporations. It's time governments do something about this.
Re:I'm Glad For This (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially in the US, we don't really manufacture much anymore. A good percentage of our GDP is intellectual property. So of course people are going to go overboard in protecting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why her? She's just explaining what is going on. Are you anti free speech or something? If anyone should be executed, it's certainly not someone who's actually helping put more focus on the unethical behavior of the ISP's.
Re: (Score:2)
Well he's got troll in his username. Do the sarcasm tags need to be in caps, too?
Re: (Score:2)
nah, but it's a bit extreme of a sarcastic joke even for a troll username. I didn't fail to see it, but I'm not exactly going to go through their post history to see if they post continual troll-posts.
Re: (Score:3)
Shooting the messenger has always solved every problem. What I can't hear does not exist, lalalalala...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I you watched the F video, you'd see that she's actually advocating net neutrality and warning against the ramifications of such a system.
This is a very large debate, but ISPs cutting/censoring/throttling your access is actually a massive deal, and goes against a lot of principles in modern coutries' Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering who she is (founder of Chilling Effects, board member of the TOR project, advocate for ICANN transparency and privacy protection, former staff attorney of the EFF for IP and free speech...) I'd guess she's not a MAFIAA shill and we should probably take that seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
treats every Internet user like a potential criminal
and how is this different from what the tsa is doing at the airport?
we have let our govts go down this road way too far already.