Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses 222
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.'"
Not the real reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pandora's lid is already off the box, the studios just want to make a couple bucks at the spigot while they still can.
DRM failed, so change strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:that may be true, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD begets FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorant about how this would backfire (Score:2, Insightful)
Levels the playing field (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Levels the playing field (Score:4, Insightful)
All I am hearing... (Score:2, Insightful)
boohoo (Score:2, Insightful)
MPAA Argues *For* Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
The internet is not all about the *AA's content .. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the ISP's job to prevent copyright infringement, nor should it be.
Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
USPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advant (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Corrupt organisation... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:DRM failed, so change strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:FUD begets FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for keeping the government out of our daily lives, but there are instances where government intervention is necessary. Or do you have millions of dollars, top-notch lawyers, and the legal ability at your disposal to slap the likes of Comcast in the face hard enough that they stop bullying everyone else on the playground?
Re:Thanks for your own FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats what I think they are trying to do.
My opinion on the matter, let the ISPs do what they want, if they remain a strict pipe and do nothing else to impede or interfere with traffic, thats great, but allow them the choice.
Should those same ISPs decide to mess with traffic (say filter or block VOIP and pushing their own services), let them, but strip them of all common carrier status and regulate them in such a way, let the lawsuits flow.
I think if the above happened, their interest in filtering and pushing their own services over competitors by using traffic shaping will disappear. I hope anyways.
Re:DRM failed, so change strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:that may be true, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at every election in the past (I have not, but I am pretty sure there is a trend going), how many presidents have followed through with any of their campaign promises, I would hazard to guess... not a single one. Politicians all spout the I work for the people blah blah blah.. but what they really mean is they give major tax breaks to corporations in their districts who donate craptons of money to said politician...
Re:FUD begets FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thanks for your own FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
Your nick might be "RealProgrammer" but you talk like a "RealAuthoritarian".
Re:Thanks for your own FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you not see the exceptions to this? Are you seriously claiming Microsoft was created by regulation?
If you think we would even have functional cell service without that regulation, you're deluded. What's to stop one cell company from "accidentally" causing massive interference for a competitor's network? Do you really want five times more cell towers than are needed (and radiation to match), just because of competing providers? What happens when they start boosting their signal to guarantee they have clearer calls than their competitors (and, coincidentally, interfering with their competitors' systems)?
Back to the issue at hand: ISPs have a physical monopoly. Laying ever-more cable and fiber everywhere is going to cost a lot, is wasteful, and isn't always an option.
There are some things the free market can't solve.