[ NNSquad ] Re: Net Neutrality vs. Illegal Acts

[jbartas <jbartas@speakeasy.net>]

Nick Weaver wrote:
> Which would those on the list rather have: A blanket block on outbound
> port 25, or a heuristic detector blocking outbound port 25 based on
> the behavior of the host, even though the dynamic block IS performing
> an inspection on the traffic?
>   
A bit like asking if I'd rather be shot or poisoned. How about a third 
choice: I promise not to send spam, and my ISP ignores my port 25 
packets. If I do send spam, the courts jail me under current anti-spam laws.

But email's a strawman - lets stick to the real "illegal content" 
protocol, BitTorrent.

Yes, I do object to a third party, ANY third party,  deciding what's 
"legal" on the net, because that party would immediately be co-opted by 
the RIAA, MPAA, and a host of other greedy characters. Keep in mind the 
only reason most of this content is "illegal" in the first place is 
because  corrupt politicians voted in copyright laws written, word for 
word, by RIAA and MPAA members. The founding fathers of this country 
mandated a 14 year copyright, and that was when the fastest way to move 
content was on horseback. Now copyrights last for 100 years, far longer 
than needed to protect the creators. John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix and Elvis 
are long dead, but we still can't pass around their music, as Americas 
Founding Fathers intended us to. Letting the same people who corrupted 
the system oversee the enforcement is a bad idea.

  [ However, copyright law does exist, and for now the immediate
    issue is appropriate enforcement mechanisms, not the positive
    and negative issues of copyright itself, which are not trivial.

       -- Lauren Weinstein
          NNSquad Moderator ]


--
John Bartas - Director of Network Engineering
Packet Island, Inc. www.packetisland.com
jbartas@packetisland.com
cell: 408-857-0605