|
Post by nybound on Jan 28, 2009 15:00:17 GMT -5
Sure, the RIAA has given up on lawsuits, but that's because it's got an even better trick: ISPs will do their dirty work for them. Not surprisingly, AT&T and Comcast stepped right up, says CNET.
Since they both vividly recall past PR debacles when it comes to monitoring or breaking your internets—AT&T floated and quickly stopped talking about plans for internet-wide copyright dragnet.
But the gist is that the ISP would be a courier for the ISPs takedown notices, with graduated penalties, like suspension, all the way up to termination.
Even though in one sense I'm not surprised AT&T and Comcast would be the first to play ball with the RIAA, on the other hand, it seems weird they'd go through the extra effort to be the RIAA's buttboy, given that they're already implementing aggressive traffic management, with monthly data caps and in Comcast's case, slowdowns for heavy users. Especially since the RIAA really has no major leverage over them in terms of content, like say movie studios or networks, who they depend on for content to sell their services to customers.
Hey, at least it's net neutral, right guys? Should they be allowed to monitor us like that?
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 28, 2009 15:06:39 GMT -5
For us less informed perhaps you could provide links and elaborate how the average Joe will be affected.
|
|
|
Post by nybound on Jan 28, 2009 15:14:26 GMT -5
Well it depends. If you're a heavy internet user like myself, downloading and uploading multiple gigabytes per month then you'll be greatly affected by major corporations monitoring you.
Say I decide to download a movie via Torrent site. It's only ~4.2 gigabytes. Then I grab a few other movies that I like on the Torrent site all being ~4.2 gigabytes. This will then flag your internet and send a warning to the corporations that say they give "unlimited internet use" and they'll push a button that drastically slows your speed while they investigate what you're doing.
In other words there will be a room filled with technicians monitoring internet traffic to catch people not using it how they'd like - this is a threat to having internet neutral from monitoring.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 28, 2009 15:31:23 GMT -5
sorry to burst everyones buble here, but Bush and Cheney have been monitoring every form of communication for years.
EVERYONE.
|
|
|
Post by nybound on Jan 28, 2009 15:37:26 GMT -5
Okay, that may be, but I'm talking about lawsuits on the internet here.
The RIAA stopped suing people for pirating music.
There are millions upon millions of people that upload stuff to the internet. You have to get that I'm an advocate of the internet being a virtual world where laws/monitoring cannot apply. It's a virtual world outside our nation. It's owned by the WORLD. Let it be neutral.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 28, 2009 16:01:56 GMT -5
I see your point NY-
I agree,,,,the internet belongs to the world.
Just like America's Airwaves belong to ALL America, not the corporate GOP who hide under the lie of FREE MARKET.
So you are saying corporations should keep their hands of the world's internet? I AGREE>
I just wish folks would feel the same about America's Airwaves that have been hijacked by the GOP under the term capitalism...
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 28, 2009 16:55:06 GMT -5
nybound,
I fully agree with things like making the Global Positioning System (GPS) freely available for public use and severely limiting any restrictions on internet access.
I do, however, see a problem with unwarranted and unlicensed use of copyrighted material.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 28, 2009 18:40:42 GMT -5
Correct me if I’m wrong nybound but this has nothing to do with what has happened but what may happen.
From the average Joe perspective, we are not downloading gigabytes of movies simultaneously so why should we care as it does not impact the everyday user.
Maybe what you are suggesting is there should be tiered pricing for heavy users. It is the way Australia manages connections. Verizon is doing that now for DSL users.
In the olden days (dialup 300 baud) folks were billed by usage not a flat rate.
It is my understanding Obama supports net neutrality, is that changing? Is Obama caving to pressures from Reid, Pelosi and Smer?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jan 28, 2009 19:05:06 GMT -5
Jack, you now have more stars by your name and a -7 karma. How DO you earn stars AND negative karma at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 28, 2009 19:12:11 GMT -5
Hatch, CM gave me a temporary promotion to help with the site while he was gone. He did not, however, expunge my record of negative Karma points. Guess he figured that I should keep what I earned.
|
|
|
Post by nybound on Jan 29, 2009 15:57:37 GMT -5
I see your point NY- I agree,,,,the internet belongs to the world. Just like America's Airwaves belong to ALL America, not the corporate GOP who hide under the lie of FREE MARKET. So you are saying corporations should keep their hands of the world's internet? I AGREE> I just wish folks would feel the same about America's Airwaves that have been hijacked by the GOP under the term capitalism... Okay, I remember your bashing of the American airwaves on the KFMB forums. Just stop. The reason liberal airwaves went under is because....wait....no one listened to it. OHHH it makes sense now.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 29, 2009 16:21:11 GMT -5
NY so then if you believe it is ok for GOP to buy out the America Air waves and call it the free market,
then who cares if the corporations take over control of the internet.
you cant have it both ways...sorry.....
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jan 29, 2009 18:08:34 GMT -5
NY so then if you believe it is ok for GOP to buy out the America Air waves and call it the free market, then who cares if the corporations take over control of the internet. you cant have it both ways...sorry..... Jack Oliver, how does twisting one's words help with anything? By the way, I never had the occasion to listen to Air America. I have heard and read a lot. Very little was unbiased. So, I ask you: was it liberal- biased? If it was, would you have given it the same disdain as you do with "GOP" programing?
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Jan 29, 2009 18:31:49 GMT -5
Here Hatch is the difference between Liberal and Conservative talk radio bias.
Liberal talk radio attacks the subject matter- such as today the obstruction by Republicans over the Stimulus package. They attack the talking points of the Republican Party.
Conservative radio attacks the people that represent Democrats- Race, Creed, Culture, Color, Wealth, Disability.
You will never hear a Liberal talk show attack a group for being poor, or black, or Hispanic.
They don't get on the radio and call Palin names because she wears glasses, or wears a low cut top- like Limbaugh and Hannity did over Hilary Clinton. You won't hear a Air America talker attack blacks as lazy or crime ridden.
Thats the difference with the two. One talks issues while the other talks hate for groups of people. One segregates while the other is all inclusive.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 29, 2009 18:34:32 GMT -5
Well Jack Oliver you can have it both ways the two issues are unrelated. Further I don not think you can produce any evidence the GOP has purchased the airwaves. The fact is the FCC has approved and issued licenses to stations that operate on a given frequency. If you want to blame anyone blame the FCC for issuing the license. Not part of this topic but you might want to read up on public airwaves. The topic here is net neutrality not the GOP and the air waves.
nybound see my previous post, I still have the same questions.
|
|