I'm going to wind-down on this thread, but what would happen to video's
like 'Telus Idol', that are very controversial in that copyright is not
crystal clear, and the dealing likely fair (news reporting).
See: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1999/125/ for the back
story.
Would the ISPs have the ability to censor negative media about
themselves as has happened with the DMCA? When we mix copyright and net
neutrality, we inevitably end up with censorship -- whether its
blocking access to workers-for-change or blocking the viewing of telus
idol.
Any analysis of these types of systems has to presume the worst
intentions by the carriers and media companies involved. We have a
track record here, and it can't be ignored. Its unreasonable to think
that the only thing a carrier need do to suppress bad pr is to kick it
off the web and say 'sue us' in order to get it back online. The value
of censoring, or delaying the release of the content drastically
outweighs any potential damages and costs associated with a lawsuit.
Any censorship system, no matter how well meaning, will be abused.
K
lynn wrote:
substitute spam/mers. imo that is a worse problem. would you have every
web developer code in such a manner that spammers can't get thru the forms
and use your mail server? spam is illegal. would you ban exchange? which
has legal uses but is used very often bt spammers? would any of this be an
issue if it was a lone (read not wealthy) copyright holder complaining? is
ap, reuters, cnn, etc complaining because people copy their pages (and
give credit)? is most of youtube.com about to be prosecuted? or google?
why is this discussion only about p2p?
As I understand it, this list was formed in reaction to Comcast being
caught red-handed ... engaging in responsible network management. If
it's meant to be a piracy rights forum, I was mislead.
It's important, I think, for us to distinguish legitimate and
illegitimate forms of traffic control, as well as to identify the
innocent victims of over-zealous enforcement of copyrights and all that.
Large-scale piracy is a problem that cries out for a technical solution.
The problem is too blatant to ignore and we all bear the costs of it. If
half of residential broadband's capacity is devoted to stolen material,
cleaning up these networks makes more available to the rest of us at
lower cost. It can only help, as long as it's done right.
The EFF argued with me at NN2008 that pirates would resort to crypto and
all that to avoid detection, but that bird doesn't fly. In order to
collude with someone you don't know to pirate MS Office, you need a
rendezvous system of some kind, If that system is heavily cloaked to
avoid detection it will be ineffective. The movement of piracy toward
cloaked systems actually serves the aims of the content owners even
better than immediate blocking or post-hoc prosecution. They want this
sort of thing not to happen at all, naturally, but are willing to accept
that a certain amount is unavoidable.
The level of piracy we have today with Mininova, The Pirate's Bay and
their kin is so blatant we can't really expect the content owners to do
nothing about it.
RB
Edward Almasy wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
There is a risk of unfair shut-offs, but it's very, very small and
can be dealt with after the fact in some reasonable way.
I would suggest that the very existence of NNSquad belies this
argument. It's likely that few if any on this list are spammers,
however most here have been directly affected in one fashion or
another by anti-spammer measures, and I would suspect many of us are
here in part because of the prospect of similar unfair measures being
introduced.
Ed
|