You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 14 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Ruling on Net Neutrality, U.K. Bill on File-Sharing
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Dark Paladin X
 Posts: 268 |
|
||
|
Wow, can't believe it. At least someone is stepping up to deal with the Internet piracy issue.
|
|||
|
|||
Takeyo
 Posts: 736 |
|
||
|
EFF's take on the Comcast case.
|
|||
|
|||
tuxedocat
 Posts: 2183 |
|
||
|
My take on this is that heavy downloaders who save money by downloading all the "free" stuff will end up paying for it anyway in the form of higher fees.
Comcast and other ISP's won't discriminate, they will just charge extra for internet connections, depending on usage. They will probably set up some non-discriminatory tier system This sounds like a big money maker for the ISP's. |
|||
|
|||
|
Jaymie
Posts: 915 |
|
||
|
There's a fine line between being anti-pirate, and pro-spying...
|
|||
|
|||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15550 |
|
||
|
Sign this petition to get the FCC to insure net neutrality.
|
|||
|
|||
|
MetatronM
Posts: 281 |
|
||
|
The federal court ruling was a ruling against an argument made by the FCC regarding the justification for how and why they can enforce net neutrality. The FCC's jurisdiction is based on a law passed in the 1930s, so, needless to say, almost all of their powers and authority over modern media is based upon the extrapolation of powers granted to them in the first place. The court's ruling was that their specific argument citing a specific power was insufficient evidence that they have authority over net neutrality. The FCC has many other arguments for such authority, so this isn't over by a long shot.
The case will likely move on to the Supreme Court, and even if the FCC still gets shot down, they still have backup plans and other articles under which they can enforce net neutrality. As long as there are appeals and legal disputes in progress, things will remain as they are. Expect that to be quite a long time. And for once, this is actually a fight where we really do want the FCC to win (it's not about piracy, after all, that's just the very flimsy justification for what would amount to the complete dismantling of the present model of the internet, its access to the free flow of information, and, most importantly, the free and fair enterprise it provides). |
|||
|
|||
|
ConanSan
Posts: 1818 |
|
||
|
That's cool, I'll just watch the simulcast of One Piece on Funimation.com
oh wait Oh f***. It's one thing to punish people stealing your nonsense but quite another to provide no legal means of access whilst you're at it.. |
|||
|
|||
Koji98
 Posts: 112 |
|
||
|
FCC will get their way in the end. And that's a good thing.
With the current ruling, Comcast can slow and/or block any site they want, plus charge websites if they don't want to be slowed down. For example, let's say that Comcast demands Google that they want X money or google.com and everything related to Google will be slowed down. Google refuses to do this, so Comcast now slows every Google owned site, which effects the user. Then Comcast comes up to Yahoo, and Yahoo pays to not be slowed down. So now if you go to yahoo.com, their site should be running 100% efficiently, however when you access google it will be slow because Comcast throttles it. Comcast wants to slow sites like youtube and other streaming sites because more people are switching over to streaming instead of watching cable TV, which is what Comcast provides. And with them buying NBC, they are trying to get Hulu, which they will immediately start charging for, and knowing Comcast, want to charge an incredible amount of money. Most likely, the government will amend the laws so the FCC can control this aspect, since this ruling goes against what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish. |
|||
|
|||
|
JLightstar
Posts: 140 Location: Venice, Florida |
|
||
|
Will this decision only affect comcast subscribers or will this allow other companies to adopt this practice as well?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fellistowe
|
|
||
|
With regards to the UK case; while this bill is specifically aimed at the music and Hollywood film piracy issues, I wonder to what extent they may start blocking people downloading fansubs and translated j-games?
Since the UK anime industry is still fairly barren on releases compared to our US counterparts, the vast majority of UK anime fans I've come into contact with (which is a fair few hundred) still majority download for their anime fix (not going to condone or condemn, it's just a sorry fact) With them showing up a little blips on the torrenting radar I do wonder how long it'll be till they start getting noticed. A question to our US counterparts too, what do you think of the chances of a bill like this being passed in the states? (or do you already have it in some form?) Or bill was passed due to huge pressure (*ahem* payoffs) from the music industry; heck, even one proposed part of the bill was effectively written by them! So now with their success over here I wonder how long it'll be till they start putting pressure down everywhere else? With such measures and monitoring in place, all it'll take then is a request from the Japanese licensors to someone like Funimation to protect copyright for them (which I believe they've done before with C&D letters) and its clampdown time. I'll admit I'm fairly clueless to US law though, so I'm hoping someone will enlighten me 
|
|||
RedTail
 Posts: 176 |
|
||
|
I'm all for net neutrality, but the FCC does not have the legal right to enforce it and nor should they. If the government really wants to ensure net neutrality, they need to look at breaking up these huge media companies that are essentially monopolies. More competition means more companies vying for customers and doing whatever it takes to keep them happy.
|
|||
|
|||
Cetus-kun
 Posts: 139 |
|
||
|
Allowing ISP's to prevent websites from loading unless they pay up seems a whole lot like extortion. While I can understand the concerns ISP's may have about their customer's data usage and their own costs of operation I don't see how doing something like that can be justified as ethical. If my understanding is correct this could also be used to prevent internet users from accessing websites that express opinions the ISP's parent companies don't agree with as well right?
|
|||
|
|||
Daemonblue
 Posts: 701 |
|
||
|
The problem with the DEB is that the way it's worded they only have to accuse you of copyright infringement.
This little bit is quoted from TorrentFreak:
Emphasis added. Several other things to mention is that less than half the MPs even voted on the Bill, and most of them voted against their constituents, while the bill has mostly written by the anti-piracy lobbyists. As for the US law it's kinda good and ikinda bad, bad in that for now net neutrality can't be enforced, but good in that the FCC now has a reason to go to Congress and officially get the powers to ensure the internet remains neutral. |
|||
|
|||
|
Takeyo
Posts: 736 |
|
||
And does anyone really want the agency that can fine or shut down broadcasters for saying too many naughty words to be in charge of the Internet? |
|||
|
|||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
||
Since UK anime licensors don't have as much of a stature as the music companies, legally-enforced preventative measures against fansubs may be slow in coming to fruition. Regardless, I hear on the local grapevine that P2P is the primary target here; hosted downloads and FTP transfers might not be monitored to a similar degree as torrents will. (Of course, I cannot verify this.) I can but speculate about the effect the bill would have on Japanese game downloads. Of course, titles containing certain hitherto-legal content will be dealt with by another recent bill. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group