Net neutrality is still an issue BUT if the corporations control everything on the net, isn't whether or not you can get to it kind of moot?
The Obama Admin has just completed a TOP SECRET copyright treaty that reeks of fascism - govt making rules based on what's best for their corporate owners. Corey Doctorow at Boing Boing is very concerned. So am I. (Via Avedon Carol) The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
- That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
- That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
There's more and it's all bad. Some of us have been afraid of this for years. I remember having heated arguments with some very good friends right after I got online in 2000, one of whom was a sys admin, who all said it would be absolutely impossible to control the net. It was simply too big. Even then I could see the choke point: ISP's. Control the providers and you control what's provided. And when. And to whom. And for how much.
In those days there were thousands of small ISP's all over the country. When I first got an internet-ready computer, even though I lived in a one-cow Massachusetts hilltown there was a local ISP literally up the block from me. By comparison we are today down to a handful of large, corporate ISP's responsible for providing some 3/4 of the nation's internet access. That consolidation makes this kind of law not just possible but dangerous. If the govt is going to turn internet providers into cybercops on behalf of corporations making outrageous claims of ownership, dumping overboard the settled rights doctrines that made uncommercial use of copyrighted materials perfectly legal, we are going to find ourselves very quickly in a world where everything is owned by whoever claims it.
The cyber version of the days of the Western Robber Barons.
This is the kind of pro-corporate, anti-consumer BS that is one of the main reasons I've been worries about Obamas all along. This is NOT a guy who's going to rock any corporate boats very much. He has become an establishment, "Third Way" DLC-style conservaDem when it comes to any policy that might affect corporate donations to the party - the biggest single reason he made Rahm Emanuel, the apostle of corporate ass-kissing in exchange for $$$, his COS.
And this is only the beginning.
There will be more from Corey in the days ahead. I'd follow it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Robert Young
Phillip Lance Weir
Public D
Norwonk
Noni The Intern
MW Louie
Salon.com
Comments
How do we really know anymore? So now I have to take the time to research who Corey Doctorow is to be able to even develop a cogent thought about your blog. Not your fault but that would be too time consuming.
And lest you start to think such things (leaked top-secret memos) are fiction, take note that these exact measures are currently being voted on in Canada, Britain and much of the EU. Openly. Publicly.
Also keep in mind you don't need to be actually found guilty of anything - just accused. If you want to listen to your iTunes library at home from work, you're "sharing"and subject to being cut off.
I've installed TOR (google it) and plan on using it more judiciously.
"That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability..."
without a trial? isn't that unconstitutional? And how would that affect cell phone contracts when you've used that for access?
How would it affect libraries/cafes with constantly changing users?
Dial-up access without an ISP is still availiable, yes?
Does any court have time for this nonsense? Or is it a big nasty bluff with no balls?
Would there be giant class-action lawsuits for people who were outright slandered out of what they paid for?
The scorched earth policies corporations lobby for are always deaf to the truth of how to retain profits because they can never hear it over the sound of their own salivating. This is seriously flawed logic that's bound to make them LESS money.
And what of Obama's other campaign promise of widespread internet access? Is he planning on another crap and jelly sandwich like the healthcare bill? Sorry to rant, just disgusted and paranoid.
Fudo: Thanx for explaining BB and Doctorow. Not everyone knows who they are, I guess.
Cocoalfresco: without a trial? isn't that unconstitutional?
Not until it goes to court, which it almost certainly would if it were public. But since it's hiding under the banner of "national security", the argument could be made that this "treaty" can't be discussed publicly and that it comes under the PATRIOT Act, which could in turn mean "not subject to judicial review".
Obama's secrecy penchant - supporting FISA, Bush's obviously unconstitutional state secrets policy, and the PA itself - has been bothering me for months. This is why. He doesn't seem to have a problem supporting patently unConstitutional laws or keeping things secret that are giveaways to corporate donators. Neither does Biden, who's been doing the same for banking in Maryland for decades.
Perhaps your own tin foil hat slipped down, got tangled up in your messy scarf and obscured your vision and ability to read what I said.
Now I'm not being nice.
it's an agreement between the ISP's and the gov't, kind of like when the NSA installed those secret closets down the hall from Verizon's and ATT's main routers, with all the wires running in and back out. Basically, you agree to cut people off on our say-so, and we'll allow you to keep doing what you're doing. (and limiting bandwidth as you see fit)
I've seen people discussing "market correction," and the fallacy that, if your ISP does something you don't like, you're free to take your business elsewhere. There is no elsewhere for me. If I were to have choices, it's the local cable co. or Verizon. Anyone else would be reselling bandwidth on their wire, and I'd still be black-balled.
and yes, it's _not_ in their financial best interests to do this, that's why it's extremely short sighted. They see only lost profits when they see someone downloading a TV via bit torrent, not a potential new fan, someone who would not only tune in every week but perhaps buy the boxed set. They _want_ to make it financially untenable for anyone (YouTube) to operate a site where people share media. Anyone that isn't them, that is.
Had you bothered to read the rest of Doctorow's post you would have found links to the actual treaty, which you could have read for yourself, thus obviating the need for you to decide whom to trust. Surprising as you may find this, I don't particularly care if my readers trust me or not. In many ways I'd actually prefer that they didn't. I'd rather they went to the source for themselves and made up their own minds. They might disagree with my interpretation or know something I don't know. (Fudo is a good example.)
That's what being a citizen is all about. But a lot of people want it all handed to them on a plate, predigested like what momma feeds baby birds. I expect more than that. I wasn't being snarky with you, I was simply being blunt. And not just for you but for anyone else who thinks it's just too tough to know who to believe. Pap.
Y'all haven't been willing to do the work and you've pretty much gotten what you deserve as a result. Problem is, because you lazed off, those of us who didn't still got run over by the same steamroller - the one you didn't know enough to help us stop.
Ignorance may be bliss for awhile but in the end, it kills.
My first comment the other day was about my own tin -foil hat. Didn't allege at that point that you had one.
Then I did . I've actually had work in the past where I had to sit and take notes in the homes of people who actually have tin-foil covered windows and hats. Sometimes they make sense. It can be very confusing. Sometimes they don't. Equally confusing.
I went to the link. Not so impressed as you. So what?
You do post with some interesting ideas, comments and topics. I'll still read it on occasion. I most likely benefit by knowing of intelligent sources where I can find another viewpoint.Your posts are good for that.
It's good you don't care however whether I trust or like you or not. That part is working out just fine.