Skip to comments.Why SOPA and Net Neutrality Must Be Stopped
Posted on 12/26/2011 5:13:23 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
I think this excerpt from a comment on the Hot Air article summarizes Congress latest attempt to control the internet very well:
Politicians cannot stand watching the internet go unregulated and untaxed. It drives them insane.
And thats exactly correct. The internet is one of the most free places on Earth, as an interchange of ideas, open source media, news, and educational content. It became that way not as a result of any single governments efforts, but as a collaboration between the worlds brightest minds seeking profit. In other words, it was birthed as the purest form of a free market.
And that, quite frankly, drives politicians crazy. With the FCCs moves to enforce Net Neutrality, and the most recent SOPA bill, we see a trend: The established rulers of this world are refusing to give way to the freedom of the internet. (and its 1.97 billion users) From large copyright and patent holding companies, such as Warner Brothers, to politicians and bureaucrats who are no longer needed to keep us informed or safe, the internet is the greatest threat to old power and big money.
You see, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, and their user submitted content pose a big threat to such companies and politicians. For middle man media companies because user generated, open source or some rights reserved content is a big threat to their bottom line. (who needs to purchase a theater ticket or DVD when you can view free content, directly over the internet, the same day it was filmed?) And for politicians, like the cosponsors of SOPA, internet videos pose a threat, because it exposes their thuggish ways to the public eye.
(Excerpt) Read more at nephewsam.net ...
If everybody's a serf, then everything will be neutral, won't it?
First we got Net Neutrality, and now SOPA. What's next?
Merry (late 1 day) Christmas Abb :-)
These are bad legislations...and should not pass
However, US politicians will be in much dismay as many websites will move off shore....countries who rather have money than internet controls will welcome these web sites and the potential money they can bring in.
It appears a good portion of the blogosphere and some biggies from Silicon Valley are on to the SOPA plan and know how to fight it.
You watch this stuff closely. How about a brief, one paragraph synopisis of what “net neutrality” is. Thanks.
Goddady Tries To Recover After SOPA PR Nightmare
Now GoDaddy Has To Contend With ByeDaddy
Tech types are thinking about (shudder) politics, out of fear of SOPA law
Go Daddy backtracks to join Google in opposing online-piracy bill
Would newt or Romney sign this?
You’d think that with it being a creation of AlGore’s magnificent mind, they would worship that it has flourished. But, as is mentioned, like AlGore, all politicians really care about is how they can milk it for personal wealth/power. SOPA has NOTHING to do with protecting folks from having their products pirated.
Why would anyone continue to produce movies or music if that is what will happen to their finished product?
This issue is not as simple as some want to make it. The writer defeated any logic that might have been in this article with that one statement in parentheses.
Robert W. McChesney supports it and that’s enough for me to oppose it. I’ve read his stuff, and he’s a committed Marxist that thinks government should control communications.
Net Neutrality is an effort by the FCC to enshrine a scarcity into the internet framework. This is done by mandating that everyone is entitled to as much bandwidth as the want, anytime. That is not possible, as there is only so much bandwidth.
The free enterprise solution is to charge more for higher bandwidth users, thereby ensuring an adequate flow of capital (money) to continue to expand internet infrastructure.
The FCC’s plan would discourage higher prices for greater uses and would force ISP to allow near-unlimited usage for low prices.
Access to the internet would become a “civil right.”
Once the inevitable scarcity takes place, then the FCC becomes the de facto allocator of bandwidth. Once that happens, content regulation will not be far behind.
The concept was conceived years ago and called “universal service.” Think phone service and TV/Radio spectrum allocation.
I read the following words a different way:
—————————who needs to purchase a theater ticket or DVD when you can view free content, directly over the internet, the same day it was filmed?-————————
It’s not new at this point, but you COULD have watched it the same day it was filmed.
That comment is an either/or. Do you want to watch Hollywood’s content? Or do you want to watch free content?
Content (audio, video, the written word, pictures) have in the past depended upon scarcity to create value and power. Movie studios and TV networks and newspapers have a huge capital investment requirement that has heretofore kept competition at bay.
The internet changed all that.
Think what the printing press did to the Catholic Church’s power when the Bible became cheap enough for a layman to own.
LOL, kid yourself as much as you choose.
LOl, so everybody is now watching original, uncopyrighted home movies and listening to original, uncopyrighted home produced music?
I don't know the details of these specific laws, but every half honest person knows that the owners of copyrighted movies and music are having their rights violated on a massive scale on the internet, and with other methods of illegally copying copyrighted products.
And copyright had its origins in an effort by Government to stop what it called seditious writings. Not too virtuous a birthright, IMO.
And, NO, that was not dependent upon scarcity, except maybe the scarcity of movies and music with sufficient appeal that any significant number of people cared to listed to it or watch it.
The scarcity is, and always has been a scarcity of quality and not quantity. That scarcity still exists and always will, internet or no internet.
So, you think there should be no copyright protection for the creators of movies, music, writing, etc.? What about patents?
How much “quality” has been suppressed because it couldn’t find a way to be recognized via the former monopoly of newspapers, TV, radio and magazines?
How many political experts here at FRee Republic wouldn’t have been read if Jim Rob hadn’t built an internet-enabled forum for them to expound? Political writers that hands-down beat the so-called experts that appear on Sunday mornings on the networks.
How many citizen journalists wouldn’t be reporting if there were no internet and the public had to depend on newspapers and local TV for news? I’m one of them, btw. And I’ll put my reportorial skills up against ANYONE in North Louisiana.
How many news events wouldn’t have been exposed via viral youtube videos?
And Hollywood? That sure is some quality stuff they’re putting out these days.
Of course there should be and then the holders of those rights can sue in civil court but having the feds involved and criminal penalties is ridiculous.
“Net Neutrality is an effort by the FCC to enshrine a scarcity into the internet framework. This is done by mandating that everyone is entitled to as much bandwidth as the want, anytime. That is not possible, as there is only so much bandwidth.”
This is not my understanding of it, at least in its “pure” form. Please provide a link or citation.
The real idea of “Net Neutrality” is that no information (data) should be favored over another by any given Internet Service Provider (ISP). Some obvious examples would be Comcast or Time Warner interfering with Netflix, Hulu or Youtube data streams in order to favor their own TV service. There have also been cases of ISPs interfering with peer-to-peer software, which may be used for entirely legitimate purposes like downloading free software, or open content.
There is also no real scarcity of bandwidth, and the situation is likely to get better over time rather than worse. That’s because advances in optical data transmission are outpacing every other computer related technology, and also far outpacing the real growth in demand for bandwidth.
I favor unlimited caps simply because it’s one less thing to worry about and track, but if limited caps are imposed for home broadband they should be very high, at least 250 GB/month. A pretty good overview of the entire topic (from a Canadian perspective) is at:
I hope free market competition will keep unlimited data plans the norm.
There may be “Net Neutrality” legislation out there that’s nefarious, but actual Net Neutrality is about the freedom to use your Internet connection as you please, rather than as mandated by your ISP or other entity.
The sentence you reference is my informed opinion taking into account the regulatory history of the FCC; the action of FCC administrators since inception; the writing of communications “experts” who support net neutrality; the history of communications regulation; and the inevitable tendency of government to control human inter-communications.
Government wants control. Always has, always will.
You're not talking about bloggers are you?
Here is the first portion of the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the Internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication.The bold part is my emphasis. The full article is at: Network neutrality.
Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even block out competitors. (The term "net neutrality" didn't come into popular use until several years later, however.) The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.
The article also presents some of the arguments against Net Neutrality, and it does seem things like Quality of Service issues must be addressed. However, I don't think it should be done at the expense of the principles outlined above.
As to the government being involved, it already is. The government (DARPA) invented the Internet. It is true that one dynamic is that the government wants more power/control/money, but it is the job of us as citizens to require it to behave responsibly and in our best interest. Don't let some perversion of the idea of Network Neutrality distract you from its desirability.
Some are bloggers, I’m sure.
But mainly I’m speaking of those who go, see, hear and report who, what, when, where, and why. That’s what I do and I refer to my Wordpress site as a newsblog.
“Official” or “licensed” media often report only what they’re told to report.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement over the role of government regarding the ability of human beings to freely communicate among themselves as they see fit.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.'
The disagreement is over the term "Net Neutrality". I don't care whether or not government is involved, as long as "Net Neutrality" is preserved. So far the ISPs have mostly been all right, although the interference with peer-to-peer software is very troubling.
I suggest you use more precise terms to articulate your view, such as "FCC-enforced Net Neutrality", or better yet reference a specific piece of legislation.
(BTW I guess you advocate terminating the USPS and going the complete privatization route, eh? We wouldn't want the government involved in "private communication"...including all those pesky laws about tampering with mail. Right?)
Excuse me, but what does SOPA mean?
Absolutely. With today's technology and transportation systems, the USPS is little more than an anachronistic jobs program for Obama voters. You'll want to read some history about how the original postal systems served the King as an intelligence network used to spy on the populace and report back. See here the very first "net neutrality."
I expect rural mail customers would rather strongly disagree with your characterization. With no USPS the commercial carriers would charge an arm and a leg for rural delivery.
I think you're also missing the point that one of the strengths of the American system is that the government is as much bound by laws as the citizens. For literally hundreds of years Americans have used the US Mail with little fear of spying.
I also observe you glossed over the necessity of laws dealing with mail tampering, which would have to be in force whether or not the USPS is delivering mail.
I don’t disagree with laws against “mail tampering.” Laws also are needed to prevent unwanted surveillance of electronic communication by individuals or government.
As far as rural citizens and mail delivery, why are they entitled to subsidized service? They pay more for fire insurance, since they choose to live remotely from organized fire protection.
The government being involved is the problem in a nut shell. As I see it, government control over private communications is the antithesis of conservatism.
Writing is actually very different as it relates to the internet. Most writers/reporters, established or not, want people to read what they have written and use various methods to attract people to their sites, sites with ads or donations requested .
Except for some older works offered with ads, the music and movie copyright holder are not trying to give their current work away free of charge on the net. What eventually becomes of youtube will be interesting to watch. Youtube probably helps unknown performers, but established stars, not so much.
In the market place, quality can have more than one meaning, and I clearly said movies and music that appeals to a significant number of people. The net won't help products that have no commercial appeal, whether or not some might think they exhibit quality.
How much quality has been suppressed because it couldnt find a way to be recognized via the former monopoly of newspapers, TV, radio and magazines?
Not much. There always been avenues for someone with talent to get a shot. Shows like American Idol will probably give more singers a chance than the internet because the net will become so flooded with no talent wannabes that the few with real talent will be difficult to fine. And those entities you named have never been the only avenues for people to seek recognition, and they weren't monopolies.
i dont care who ya are, thats funny right there...
oops, no i supposed i and FR owe royalties to larry...
-——————The disagreement is over the term “Net Neutrality”. I don’t care whether or not government is involved, as long as “Net Neutrality” is preserved.-——————
You should. Because “Net Neutrality” is a red herring in order to get government involved.
The less government is involved, the more neutral the internet will remain. Look at every other sector of American life. The more government involvement there is, the less neutral it is.
This thread contains the definition of net neutrality, according to them:
-—————————one of the strengths of the American system is that the government is as much bound by laws as the citizens.
i dont care who ya are, thats funny right there...-————————
In theory, it’s a correct statement. In practice, it’s laughable to most of us Freepers because we don’t believe the media and we pay attention to the details. We make it a point to know what the media doesn’t want us to know.
But for most other Americans, they don’t even know because it isn’t reported in the first place.
You act at the moment you find out that your car has been stolen, not at the actual moment the car gets stolen. But what if you never found out your car was stolen? Welcome to the average NY Times reader. Their liberty gets stolen daily, and the media never reports it. So why would they act on it?
af_vet_rr said: It's scary how easily Free Republic could be shut down under SOPA and Jim Robinson would have no recourse.
It's scary how easily Free Republic could be shut down under SOPA and Net Neutrality and Jim Robinson would have no recourse.
There, I fixed it. After all, you and I as freepers say a lot of un-neutral things.
I think there should be copyright laws, what with this set of laws, under SOPA, what exactly is stopping the govt and businesses lobbying the govt from abusing the copyright laqws from shutting down sites they dont like ? What is stopping them from eliminating FR, any websites that praise Christianity, any sites espousing genuine conservative or libertarian or classical liberal (as opposed to modern liberal) ideals ?
That is what posters here seem to be terrified of, and perhaps legimiately so. I have heard that only sites that flagrantly violate copyright laws, like MP3 tunes or blinxtv or Pirate Bay are in any real danger and also that everything except wikipedia could get shut down. So it is hard to tell what it’s gonna do, but where are the checks to stop the govt from trying to shut down any internet sites that interfere with their support ? Where are the checks on the power of the entertainemnt industry ?
I don’t know how many here have read this entire bill. I haven’t, but what I’ve read indicates that it is primarily aimed at foreign sites that make copyrighted material available in the US.
But the desires of copyright holders concerning the internet are probably very different. Most copyright holders for written material desire that traffic be directed to their sites. The fondest dream of many is a link from Drudge because he drives so much traffic. FR has its posting guidelines based on what use copyright holders have indicated can be made of their copyrighted material. Most writing on the net seeks to attract ads and/or donations to earn money, and the more traffic they have the more they should earn.
It’s very different for the owners of movies and music, to a lesser extent TV networks, whose copyrighted work is offered illegally on the net with no compensation going back to the copyright owners. When people download music and movies illegally that’s just simple theft. When people watch illegally rebroadcast TV they aren’t breaking the law, but those who rebroadcast TV are breaking the law.
Then there are the aggregators of the rebroadcasts where the internet user actually goes to watch a TV rebroadcast. The loss to the TV networks is mostly whatever cable and dish subscriptions they might not receive because of the illegal rebroadcasts on the net. Of course the cable and dish folks object to the internet rebroadcasts that cut them out.
It seems people are lumping all these uses of copyrighted material on the net together when things actually seem very different for copyrighted writing, movies, music and TV rebroadcasts. And the written part seems the least affected by this particular law since most owners of copyrights for written material want traffic and readers.
(Of course, ebooks of novels and book length non-fiction is more like music or movies than newspaper and magazine writing.)
Thanks for that. I would have to read all of it and understand the meaning behind the various phrases and clauses before i could truly form an opinion. There is so much fear that SOPA, in conjunction with NDAA, could lead to closing down of all discussion forums and massive imprisonment of people for simply posting something online. There is that fear that we are becoming a Maoist nation where over half of freepers could suddenly disappear and never be heard from again. Which makes it more interesting that there are liberals and genuine conservatives, for instance, that support NDAA. But I would have to understand it first, remembering how easy it is to whip up hysteria over what you dont understand. Many of those who think NDAA and SOPA are designed to make us a police state also probably think sb 1070 would be used to arrest anyone for simply looking Hispanic.