Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Media News

Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses 222

Posted by Zonk
from the nothing-good-about-that-statement dept.
proudhawk writes "The LA Times is reporting that the MPAA's Dan Glickman has taken another swipe against net neutrality at his recent ShoWest appearance. 'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy. That's what some studio lobbyists have been telling lawmakers, too, in their efforts to derail neutrality legislation. And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses

Comments Filter:
  • FUD begets FUD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Meor (711208) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:26AM (#22739560)
    Both sides of this story are lying about their intentions. Extra regulation will not make the net more neutral. Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
    • Re:FUD begets FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:32AM (#22739626) Journal
      Ah yes, so that when Comcast cuts a deal with Yahoo and slows your connection down to 56k, and they're the only high speed provider in your area, you'll feel so much better that the government isn't attempting to protect consumers.

      • by inTheLoo (1255256) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:56AM (#22739898) Journal

        It's funny how companies that benefit from past and present public servitude and spectrum exclusive franchises only complain about regulation that requires them to live up to obligations they accepted to gain advantages. Ask them about open spectrum and public servitude and you will see some interesting changes in skin tone.

        The MPAA, of course, is an enemy of all kinds of freedom. They enjoy government protection in the form of patents, copyright and cable regulations. Exclusivity is not about the promotion of excellence, as anyone can see by watching the high grossing films of last year's best year ever for the MPAA, it's about locking others out. Network and software freedom will destroy their ability to lock competition out. Cost of production has vastly declined in the last 20 years. You have to ask yourself why there's only one or two film companies begging for yet more government protection.

        • Finally, someone who's thought this through.

          I'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.
        • I'd agree with what you say, but I would go further. They are short-sighted idiots. Who do they think differential bandwidth pricing is aimed at? Seeing them weigh in on the side of the ISPs is like watching someone hand a knife to a mugger in a dark alley. It's almost as if they haven't realised that in a few years they're going to want to provide high-bandwidth services to customers over those same connections...
    • by duguk (589689)
      Isn't it kind of the point that a net neutral ISP would not be able to watch data over their network and prevent piracy*?

      It's kinda like saying if we let the Royal Mail read ever letter, we might catch a few criminals. If we don't, we'll have to catch them in some other more complicated and convoluted way.

      Seriously, if its a criminal matter, I've not got too much of a problem with the GOVERNMENT watching our downloading. There's a possible reason behind it. Plus (usually) it'd go to a criminal court. If its
    • Re:FUD begets FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday March 13, 2008 @01:15PM (#22740860) Homepage Journal

      Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
      The idea of our government is that it's of, by and for the people. Removing the power of government to regulate the internet is giving away our own power to make sure the internet serves us instead of the other way around.

      I'm ashamed to see so many otherwise bright and technologically sophisticated people so misguided on this issue of Net Neutrality. We've got a small window of opportunity to save the internet as a tool of social benefit instead of just another shopping mall. Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

      We are currently seeing the social benefits of having a public medium for information that is not filtered by the Princes of Commerce. Believe me, those same Princes are desperate to destroy that public medium as fast as possible, because it threatens their hegemony.

      Please, if you don't see the importance of Net Neutrality right now, take a little time and look the matter over again. Once a free (as in speech) and open (as in doors) internet is gone, there will be no getting it back. In fact, it's only by accident that we ever had a free internet to begin with, and the rich and powerful are scrambling to lock it down ASAP.
    • Let it alone, then. Both sides. Let law enforcement do what they are hired to do in times of criminal activity (like they do with another neutral network... the phone system) and stop this criminalization of copyright infringement (the kind that has no monetary gain...) and stop lobbying to get vigilantism as a legal option for the *AA's.

      By the same token... give the FCC the ability to fine the living snot out of companies like Comcast who use illegal means to stop BitTorrent traffic (whether legitimate o
  • Corrupt organisation seeks to further own aims.

    Film at 11.

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:07PM (#22740008) Homepage
      This problem of the movie industry trying to stop the evolution of new technology has been occurring not only during the internet age. The advent of home-recordings was one, the television another. They seem to forget that they can't succeed by rejecting new technology - they must embrace it and not try to inject peculiar provisions.

      At the moment the MPAA, RIAA and similar organizations are alienating themselves from their customer base, which just means that the potential customers will continue to select different sources just to keep away from them.

      • by compro01 (777531)
        I am begining to wonder if Valenti is still running that joint from the grave. Either that or their phonograph is skipping.
  • The studios stand to make a lot of money selling streaming content through certain ISP portals rather than leaving it to the internet to find the most efficient way to distribute it without the MPAA anywhere in the picture.

    Pandora's lid is already off the box, the studios just want to make a couple bucks at the spigot while they still can.
    • There's noting to cut them out of with P2P. The MPAA is the industry's lobbying group, and exists to advance the interests of the various studios.

      What schmuck modded that insightful?
  • by athloi (1075845) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:29AM (#22739590) Homepage Journal
    DRM has failed because it annoyed publishers as much as pirates, if not more.

    The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

    They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.

    This is more likely to succeed. Although most Slashdot readers know how bad connectivity options are in the USA, very few people who limit themselves to YouTube and e-mail have any idea.

    They won't notice if they get low bandwidth caps, but they'll shriek when their kids run up the bill for $500 of overage.

    And of course, a bill that large warrants an investigation by the ISP.
    • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:14PM (#22740110) Homepage

      The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

      They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.


      And as a free bonus, it means that only THEY will be able to afford to do the digital music thing. Bye bye Indy Digital Music Labels, bye bye Indy Internet Radio, bye bye Radiohead-style "Download it and pay us directly what you want", etc.

      Brilliant. Dirty as all getout, but brilliant.
      • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:39PM (#22740420) Journal
        You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.

        Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.

        When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.

        The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.

        The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.
        • "The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful on
          • by zappepcs (820751)
            Agreed, perhaps infrastructure co-ops?
          • Wow. You support a private fire service, and private (corporate) armies. That's some mighty fine and mellow crack you're smoking..
            • Speaking of the fire service, my father in-law is actually a retired firefighter.

              He retired at the end of 2007 and at the same time he opted to get some long needed knee surgery. The reason he got it at the end of his retirement is because the department offered to keep him on worker's compensation AFTER his retirement while he recovered from his surgery. So basically our tax dollars are going to pay for him to live for free. He's not currently employed. He's officially retired. But they're paying for him t
              • I was quite suprised as I read the story about your father in law because I'd implicitly assumed that you were American, from your libertarian sounding views. Then I read as far as you being Canadian and oddly that story wasn't a suprise. Your country has possibly one of the best international reputations. I think it's really good for them to do that for him, very generous and considerate.

                It's an interesting question when you compare no-national-army against no army at all, rather than private armies. At on
          • by compro01 (777531)
            basic ideal i see is that the government owns the infrastructure (physical plant, fibre in the ground, etc.), and is responsible for its upkeep, but they are not permitted to use the infrastructure to deliver their own services. they're completely out of the market themselves, rendering them impartial. they are only able to lease it out at some constant fee (no volume discounts or whatever) to anyone who wants to use it to deliver services.

            as far as i see, that makes for a completely level playing field.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by glindsey (73730)
      This is why I'd love to see us make inroads on cheap, easy to use wireless mesh routers. A bunch of them in a municipality could automatically mesh together. In theory, enough of them could create a network large enough that they wouldn't even need to tie into the Internet -- they'd have become their own network.

      The difficulties of such a mesh are mind-boggling, of course. I'm sure getting an efficient routing system down would be a total nightmare. With a decentralized system like that, I don't know ho
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jc42 (318812)
        This is why I'd love to see us make inroads on cheap, easy to use wireless mesh routers. ... The difficulties of such a mesh are mind-boggling, of course. ... It's definitely a utopian libertarian dream, but it is one that has always fascinated me.

        Funny, but it's not just utopian libertarians with such dreams. If you dig up the docs from the earliest days of the ARPAnet, back in the 1960s, you'll find that the US Dept of Defense had exactly the same dream. Except theirs was a battle field scenario, with
        • by nschubach (922175)
          I've actually wondered about this for some time. With the programmability of the Linksys WRT54G routers, couldn't you create and sell nodes using these devices or variations of such? You could even create a solar/battery power cell for it and not require local electricity to run it. You'd need to put them in a weatherproof container and you'd probably end up spending $100 or so a piece. If you could get a stable build, reduce the footprint and get someone to mass produce this, you'd be set for a node ba
        • by compro01 (777531)

          Somehow the commercial Internet didn't see it that way. They much prefer minimal hardware with tree-structured, heirarchical connectivity, and chokepoints everywhere, without alternate routes to handle failure.
          simple. fast, cheap, reliable. choose 2. guess which ones most consumers will choose, and thus which 2 most any commercial enterprise looking to sell to those consumers will choose.

          it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough.
  • "neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy"
    Seems like he's missing the point. Glickman would be all for neutrality when some of the movie websites would be blocked by certain governments or schools or such institutions all because of the 'emerging tools' that ISPs would've implemented.
  • Sounds to me like the * Ass. of A. are looking for new partnerships. They toss something to the ISPs in exchange for support for whatever measures the Ass. is interested in getting passed. I guess we'll see a lot more of the same in the coming months -- it'll be interesting which ISPs will they be talking too and how far it goes.
  • by esocid (946821) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:36AM (#22739674) Journal
    They're against net neutrality because it doesn't give them an advantage. In the current way, they are the top dogs who get to control when and where you see a product and how much you pay for it. Under the neutrality rules they are no longer the gate-keepers per se, but have to compete with other factions that can offer more available and cheaper "products." They're using this argument because they want to tighten the strangle hold that they have, and possibly make ties with the ISPs who would control the tubes without any sort of neutrality rules. This is just another example of them treading water in an area that they can't control, yet still whine about this imaginary loss of revenue. Go to hell MAFIAA.
    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:40AM (#22739722)
      Yup. The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor. The RIAA/MPAA wants to return to the good old days of one-directional pipes. A smart network is the first requirement for this. Everything else is secondary. I hope the current organizations die out before they can push this through.
  • by AaxelB (1034884) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:39AM (#22739712)
    I read that as:

    'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent privacy'
    I was somewhat impressed how they were coming right out and saying it! But no, just more bullshit.
    • by TheMeuge (645043) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:01PM (#22739936)
      It's no more a job of the ISP to prevent piracy, than it is the job of highway builders/maintainers to make sure that their road isn't used to ship stolen goods.

      P.S. If I get modded down for using the word "stolen" as a part of my analogy, I will join the other side.
      • by z0idberg (888892)
        ...but a good one.

        Admins, whoever mods this post down is an *IAA member trying to turn TheMeuge to the dark side! Ban them!

        P.S. whoever mods this down because I used the incorrect article before *IAA is a grammar nazi of the very worst kind.
    • by TheSpoom (715771) *
      Haha, I read it the same way. The misreading really highlights the real point of the argument.
  • The MPAA & RIAA would support net neutrality if:
    1. Each ISP pays them $5000 per month for each album they see transferred across their lines (in either torrent, iTunes, or any other legal format).
    2. MPAA & RIAA get to monitor the pipelines and send the ISPs bill (Much like AT&T Vaccum Cleaner).
    Then you would see a sudden change of stone-cold hearts of these bitches to support neutrality since this gives them an edge over what consumers can see and hear.
  • ...is "waaaah... we won't be able to get the ISPs to do what we want!" Is there ANY other utility industry where a third party can inflict rule over the utility for the good of the third party? Gas? Electric? Water? An ISPs job should be to supply the Internet... thats it and thats all. It should NOT be a gatekeeper where, in the interest of other parties, things are or are not filtered. If the MPAA gets their way, I want all ISPs to filter my social networking and blog sites except for the people that I d
    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I've always thought it should be treated like phone service. How would people feel if the phone company or some other organization listened in on their phone calls, much less degrading the quality if they didn't like what you were talking about. A government organization with proper warrants should be able to do it but that's about it.
    • Is there ANY other utility industry where a third party can inflict rule over the utility for the good of the third party?
      You seem to be forgetting that the activity that they're lobbying to prevent is illegal and not just for when it concerns them. They want it, but then again so do many other people. It's not a simple case of one industry annexing the other.
  • boohoo (Score:2, Insightful)

    Steve Jobs is successful where the RIAA wasn't because he learned how to compete with free with better instead of with whining. Another argument against neutrality is that you can't pay to have ISPs allocate more bandwidth for your torrent service.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:46AM (#22739796) Homepage Journal
    If the crooked abusers of both networks and the law are demanding Net Blackmail be allowed to further their enterprise, they are evidence that we need Net Neutrality to protect us from invading our privacy and hijacking our free speech.
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:48AM (#22739818) Homepage
    Look, I realize that some of the traffic on the internet is actually illegal copies of their stuff. However, it's not my traffic, and it isn't the majority of people's traffic.

    But, some of the traffic on the roads is probably carrying illegal drugs and what have you. In the real world, we wouldn't accept widespread intrusive checking of the contents of our vehicles to try to stop that kind of stuff. I see no reason why we should accept it online.

    The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way.

    Hopefully, before long someone will firmly remind ISPs that if they want common carrier status to remain in effect, they must act like they're a transport mechanism. You're either safely responsible for none of it, or you're responsible for policing all of it.

    Sadly, I fear they may get what they want because the lawmakers are far too beholden to the lobbyists and don't understand the actual issues surrounding technology.

    Cheers
    • The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way.

      The word "force" is more appropriate than adapt in this case. They (the MAFIAA) are attempting to use the power of government to force their desired resolution upon the marketplace because they know that the marketplace, if left to its own devices, will never accept their restrictions or structure itself in the manner that they want. The name that economists use for this type of behavior is Rent Seeking [wikipedia.org] which basically refers the extraction of uncompensated value from the marketplace via force (i.e. gove

  • by sm62704 (957197) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:54AM (#22739868) Journal
    bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy

    It's not the ISP's job to prevent copyright infringement, nor should it be.
  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:56AM (#22739890)
    What we have here is an organization that is losing in the distribution game. It used to be that casual piracy wasn't a big deal because it was inconvenient to try and copy a VHS tape. Now, it is super easy to duplicate *and* distribute it over the net.

    So, instead of changing their business model where they can return the distribution power back their way *by adapting*, they're trying to inhibit or restrict the convenience of a high speed network. When are these people going to get a clue?

    In the book Good To Great [amazon.com], Jim Collins points out one of the fundamental things that great companies have to do: the have to have the courage to face reality. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it will be for them to turn things around. Some may say it's too late (I disagree), but they need a real culture change to transform.
  • people who don't play fair don't like rules about fairness and equality?

    i can't believe it

  • USPS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @11:58AM (#22739914)
    While we're at it, maybe we should make changes to the US Postal Service as well. I bet there are all kinds of shady documents, products, letters, checks, etc sent through the mail everyday. I mean, friends could be sending each other burned CDs or DVDs!!! USPS should read everything sent by everyone - just in case!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TimTheFoolMan (656432)
      Don't you realize this is why the USPS is so slow? They're just limiting the bandwidth of your mail. Too much and the truck would break down, so they have to intentionally "drop some of those packets" at the local office. - Tim
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @12:12PM (#22740068)
    If these guys are going to fuck with our internet and our culture, let's start fucking back. Which porn sites are they signed up on, preferred escort services, dealers, pimps, etc. Turn over their biggest rocks and expose the filth and muck to the light of day. Let the story change from "Why we need to destroy the net" to "Gee, honey, I didn't mean for you to find out about that tranny fetish of mine."
    • This needed to start yesterday. I'm sick of this crap. If they can spread lies like truth then we should be able to spread truth about their dirty secrets. *obviously* I don't support doing anything illegal... I'm just saying that if someone happened to come across some really personal and destructive information about these clowns that it would be for the common good.
      • by glindsey (73730)

        This needed to start yesterday. I'm sick of this crap. If they can spread lies like truth then we should be able to spread truth about their dirty secrets. *obviously* I don't support doing anything illegal... I'm just saying that if someone happened to come across some really personal and destructive information about these clowns that it would be for the common good.
        You might even say it should be posted to all the P2P networks out there.
  • Net neutrality all comes down to this question:

    Are carriers allowed to treat packets differently without the explicit direction of their own users?

    A neutral network quite obviously cannot be used to enforce the will of some third party against the will of the network's users, so yes, it does explicitly prohibit ISPs from doing the MPAAs dirty work. That is what it is supposed to do.

    (Buying a faster/slower/cheaper/more expensive/whatever service is explicit direction from you to the ISP to treat packets diff
  • I've been against legislation for the various 'Net Neutrality' acts, as lawmakers typically have no clue what the actual issues are.

    Yes, in this particular instance (screwing with larger downloads / file sharing), it hurts some of their customers, and I hope that in our capitalist market, people would _switch_providers_. (The bigger problem is that many people don't have a choice in broadband providers ... and claims of 'unlimited' service which isn't)

    But if the requirements for Net Neutrality are written
    • by compro01 (777531)
      simple method would be "no blocking of anything unless the customer specifically requests X be blocked. if they do request X be blocked, it will be blocked to the extent that it is technically feasible at no charge.". optimally, when the customer signs up, this stuff is arranged with all the other usual stuff and subject to be changed at any time with a single phone call.

      of course, this is government, so the simple method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used.
  • the better podcasting looks.

    They want to restrict us to downloading packets in the gaps between theirs, so what?

    We can afford to wait because we're not trying to be broadcasters who absolutely need the bandwidth or the user experience goes to shit and they get calls into tech support.

    Screw em. Fuck 'em where they breathe.
  • ISPs (carriers) should not be controlling content (censorship) anyway! Anymore than telephone companies are responsible for what is said over the telephone.

    We really should get that part straight.
  • I don't think that I want some music industry to have influence over how the internetz should be used.

    But hey. They already make me pay more for my blank cd's, so I guess I'm allowed now to burn some music on it.
  • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Thursday March 13, 2008 @02:26PM (#22741866)
    He is against net neutrality. Both Clinton and Obama are for it, although I suppose they are quite capable of doing a 360 on that. I found this helpful Matrix [2decide.com] of their policies.
  • To fight for net neutrality, I guess. Without piracy I'd never be able to use programs like Photoshop! :P
  • They are saying: 'out rights are of the utmost importance and nobody else should have any.'

    It's a greedy, selfish attitude that should never be encouraged or rewarded.

    If the MPAA and RIAA want to act like spoilt children, they should be treated as such.
  • What is the problem? I don't see any reason an ISP should be monitoring/restricting my content in the first place. They are a carrier, nothing more.

    What is next, will they ask for roadblocks to monitor content in my car?

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev

Working...