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 that’s 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 government’s efforts, but as a collaboration between the world’s 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 FCC’s 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.
Hello abb,
You watch this stuff closely. How about a brief, one paragraph synopisis of what “net neutrality” is. Thanks.
http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/26/goddady-tries-to-recover-after-sopa-pr-nightmare/
Goddady Tries To Recover After SOPA PR Nightmare
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/26/now-godaddy-has-to-contend-with-byedaddy/
Now GoDaddy Has To Contend With ByeDaddy
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/944406-196/tech-types-are-thinking-about-shudder-politics.html
Tech types are thinking about (shudder) politics, out of fear of SOPA law
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_19611868
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.
http://www.robertmcchesney.com/
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service
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?-————————
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
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:
http://politeching.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/debunking_bandwidth-capacity-myth/
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.