So over the last couple years advocates for Net Neutrality have been at war with ISP's and Entertainment Industries.
The Net Neutrality advocates have been fighting for no tampering with internet by ISP's and no stalking the P2P networks for illegal sharing by Entertainment Industries.
The ISP's feel that they should be able to shape traffic to allow optimum service for all users in all areas and the Entertainment Industries believe they should be able to protect their IP's
I'm kind of in the middle.
I don't think the internet should be tampered with but I also don't believe illegal activities should be able to happen with nothing being done to stop them.
Full Version: Net Neutrality And Fair Use
Honestly, the way I view it is that you really can't have defined law on the internet unless all the countries set up something like the UK except one that is more efficient for internet use.
What's legal to download in say Brazil isn't in the United States and such.
No matter what happens, there will ALWAYS be illegal activity on the internet.
Also certain Entertainment Corporations don't understand Fair Use if we're talking about the same thing here:
Fair Use sort of digested into basic terms:
What's legal to download in say Brazil isn't in the United States and such.
No matter what happens, there will ALWAYS be illegal activity on the internet.
Also certain Entertainment Corporations don't understand Fair Use if we're talking about the same thing here:
Fair Use sort of digested into basic terms:
QUOTE
1. Comment and Criticism
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.
2. Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.
2. Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.
The internet belongs to no one. It is something universal. Simply put... there's no way you can police the internet.
QUOTE (Vera @ Aug 21 2009, 01:59 AM) 
The internet belongs to no one. It is something universal. Simply put... there's no way you can police the internet.
But I'm pretty sure the governments of the world are going to give it a go.
QUOTE (Da Scotsman @ Aug 20 2009, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (Vera @ Aug 21 2009, 01:59 AM)
The internet belongs to no one. It is something universal. Simply put... there's no way you can police the internet.
But I'm pretty sure the governments of the world are going to give it a go.
And will fail miserably.
QUOTE (Vera @ Aug 20 2009, 09:59 PM)
The internet belongs to no one. It is something universal. Simply put... there's no way you can police the internet.
Shutting down major law violating websites tends to slow things down a bit though...
No one owns the world either yet we try to police that as well.
They dont need to do any traffic shaping, they just need to turn the switch and we have all the speed we want.
Governments can't even keep track of who's a legal resident. How the fudge are they going to police the whole internet?!
NN isn't really about people cracking down or not on p2p software, although that does get tied in.
NN is about big corporations wanting to exert more control over how people access the internet in order for them to make more money. People pay an ISP for a fast connection to use the internet. The big telecom companies would love to put limits on what you can access. Some ways this might happen is to charge websites a fee to allow them the people accessing their site the fastest connection, sites that wouldn't (or more importantly, couldn't) pay would see their users experiencing much slower traffic. Another way would be to charge their customers on a tiered platform so that users might only get so much access over a certain period of time. Another way is to ban certain sites entirely (like some countries do). 4chan was recently banned for a day or so from a huge ISP, they quickly unbanned it after some uproar. Some think they were testing the waters to see if they could get away with censoring internet content by starting with an unsavory website.
Having these sorts of restrictions would drastically lower or slow down this (fairly) new found way for the human race to almost instantly share information worldwide. From what I've seen, the people who blow NN off as not a big deal are people who seek to make millions by charging people for what should be free (access to information) or those whose aim is to limit the amount of information available to the public (e.g. oppressive governments).
People should be able to get on to the internet (free at the library or paying at home) and not have what they see and how much they see interfered with by companies or the government.
This reared it's head a few years ago and two big political blogs, the very liberal Daily Kos and the very conservative Red State stood together and opposed attempts at the big telecoms from destroying net neutrality.
NN is about big corporations wanting to exert more control over how people access the internet in order for them to make more money. People pay an ISP for a fast connection to use the internet. The big telecom companies would love to put limits on what you can access. Some ways this might happen is to charge websites a fee to allow them the people accessing their site the fastest connection, sites that wouldn't (or more importantly, couldn't) pay would see their users experiencing much slower traffic. Another way would be to charge their customers on a tiered platform so that users might only get so much access over a certain period of time. Another way is to ban certain sites entirely (like some countries do). 4chan was recently banned for a day or so from a huge ISP, they quickly unbanned it after some uproar. Some think they were testing the waters to see if they could get away with censoring internet content by starting with an unsavory website.
Having these sorts of restrictions would drastically lower or slow down this (fairly) new found way for the human race to almost instantly share information worldwide. From what I've seen, the people who blow NN off as not a big deal are people who seek to make millions by charging people for what should be free (access to information) or those whose aim is to limit the amount of information available to the public (e.g. oppressive governments).
People should be able to get on to the internet (free at the library or paying at home) and not have what they see and how much they see interfered with by companies or the government.
This reared it's head a few years ago and two big political blogs, the very liberal Daily Kos and the very conservative Red State stood together and opposed attempts at the big telecoms from destroying net neutrality.
QUOTE (123man)
This reared it's head a few years ago and two big political blogs, the very liberal Daily Kos and the very conservative Red State stood together and opposed attempts at the big telecoms from destroying net neutrality.
>_<
If those two blogs agree on something, then that's as good as it being natural law
QUOTE (123man @ Aug 23 2009, 05:49 PM)
NN isn't really about people cracking down or not on p2p software, although that does get tied in.
NN is about big corporations wanting to exert more control over how people access the internet in order for them to make more money. People pay an ISP for a fast connection to use the internet. The big telecom companies would love to put limits on what you can access. Some ways this might happen is to charge websites a fee to allow them the people accessing their site the fastest connection, sites that wouldn't (or more importantly, couldn't) pay would see their users experiencing much slower traffic. Another way would be to charge their customers on a tiered platform so that users might only get so much access over a certain period of time. Another way is to ban certain sites entirely (like some countries do). 4chan was recently banned for a day or so from a huge ISP, they quickly unbanned it after some uproar. Some think they were testing the waters to see if they could get away with censoring internet content by starting with an unsavory website.
Having these sorts of restrictions would drastically lower or slow down this (fairly) new found way for the human race to almost instantly share information worldwide. From what I've seen, the people who blow NN off as not a big deal are people who seek to make millions by charging people for what should be free (access to information) or those whose aim is to limit the amount of information available to the public (e.g. oppressive governments).
People should be able to get on to the internet (free at the library or paying at home) and not have what they see and how much they see interfered with by companies or the government.
This reared it's head a few years ago and two big political blogs, the very liberal Daily Kos and the very conservative Red State stood together and opposed attempts at the big telecoms from destroying net neutrality.
NN is about big corporations wanting to exert more control over how people access the internet in order for them to make more money. People pay an ISP for a fast connection to use the internet. The big telecom companies would love to put limits on what you can access. Some ways this might happen is to charge websites a fee to allow them the people accessing their site the fastest connection, sites that wouldn't (or more importantly, couldn't) pay would see their users experiencing much slower traffic. Another way would be to charge their customers on a tiered platform so that users might only get so much access over a certain period of time. Another way is to ban certain sites entirely (like some countries do). 4chan was recently banned for a day or so from a huge ISP, they quickly unbanned it after some uproar. Some think they were testing the waters to see if they could get away with censoring internet content by starting with an unsavory website.
Having these sorts of restrictions would drastically lower or slow down this (fairly) new found way for the human race to almost instantly share information worldwide. From what I've seen, the people who blow NN off as not a big deal are people who seek to make millions by charging people for what should be free (access to information) or those whose aim is to limit the amount of information available to the public (e.g. oppressive governments).
People should be able to get on to the internet (free at the library or paying at home) and not have what they see and how much they see interfered with by companies or the government.
This reared it's head a few years ago and two big political blogs, the very liberal Daily Kos and the very conservative Red State stood together and opposed attempts at the big telecoms from destroying net neutrality.
In my opinion, I find it a huge waste of time for ISPs to try and gain more control over internet accessibility. What they seem to not understand is that nobody is going to buy into their BS. In the end these big companies will probably lose money if they try to limit the internet from their subscribers because there's nothing stopping people from switching to an ISP that won't screw them over.
It won't work. Although if you're a company that likes to know exactly who their customers are and share their behavior patterns to their friends and express what the like and dislike then you're out of luck. Oh wait. There's Facebook.
I agree with Vera, it would pretty much kill the concept of the internet, which is kinda a place with no borders, and in which people make their own rules for their own domains.
QUOTE (Cxkslei @ Aug 21 2009, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE (Da Scotsman @ Aug 20 2009, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (Vera @ Aug 21 2009, 01:59 AM)
The internet belongs to no one. It is something universal. Simply put... there's no way you can police the internet.
But I'm pretty sure the governments of the world are going to give it a go.
And will fail miserably.
Why do you say that? Do you have any facts to support your statement? Can you present any scenarios from which your stated conclusion can be reasonably extrapolated?
QUOTE (Jose0 @ Aug 26 2009, 06:35 AM)
I agree with Vera, it would pretty much kill the concept of the internet, which is kinda a place with no borders, and in which people make their own rules for their own domains.
That's only one supposed 'concept' of the internet - primarily the one for your standard end-user. It does not necessarily hold true for other parties, such as corporations and regulatory bodies.
ISP's do far too much monkeying with the internet. And governments are the worst yet. I think music companies are just flat out greedy, sure a band has to make money and the producers and studios ect. But if some one truely likes a band they go buy there cd regardless of if they can get it online they go see the band play live in concert, they buy the merchandise.
These companies are just getting greedy because now there not making multi-millions of dollars. Alot of bands are advocates of free music downloads as well.
I do think that some illegal activitys online should be stopped like organized crime and CP. But when things like free music and freedom of speech and equal accessability to the net become censored and shaped and goverment looked over then there is a huge problem.
These companies are just getting greedy because now there not making multi-millions of dollars. Alot of bands are advocates of free music downloads as well.
I do think that some illegal activitys online should be stopped like organized crime and CP. But when things like free music and freedom of speech and equal accessability to the net become censored and shaped and goverment looked over then there is a huge problem.
"Fair use" is a con made simply to bully people into thinking they have to cut down their internet usage to make more profit for the big ISPs.
I paid for a month therefore I am fully entitled to use it for a month, and there is no way in hell they can come back in 6 months and charge me again for the time spent.
And lets face it, if corporations do get this law everything will be set up on itunes and people will be charged £3 to watch a single episode of a tv program, on top of what they pay ISPs...and the legalised extortion system of the tv license in England.
I paid for a month therefore I am fully entitled to use it for a month, and there is no way in hell they can come back in 6 months and charge me again for the time spent.
And lets face it, if corporations do get this law everything will be set up on itunes and people will be charged £3 to watch a single episode of a tv program, on top of what they pay ISPs...and the legalised extortion system of the tv license in England.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.