Some must-see Net neutrality videos

Some must-see Net neutrality videos

Summary: Sometimes, images and sound get the point across better than words (or in this case, a combination of images, sound, and words).  Yesterday, Stefano Boscutti sent me a Windows video (downloadable from our servers, with his permission.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Browser
6
Save the Internet: Click hereSometimes, images and sound get the point across better than words (or in this case, a combination of images, sound, and words).  Yesterday, Stefano Boscutti sent me a Windows video (downloadable from our servers, with his permission. A Quicktime version is available.) that he apparently put together that uses the metaphor of a supposedly open trail through the woods, surrounded by a sprawl of restricting street signs to get a point across about how the telcos are looking to control just how open the Internet is and to promote SaveTheInternet.com.  So, I visited SaveTheInternet.com and when I got there, I found another good video on the subject matter by Moby (shot in Washington, DC where some ludicrous laws are making their way through Congress).  Also, here's Boscutti's Web site.

Topic: Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Ask a Ninja about Net Neutrality

    There's a really funny video on net neutrality at www.askaninja.com.
    jkint
  • Why are we promoting Moveon.org propaganda?

    Net neutrality is a very complex issue. It is a case of the big telcos against the big internet companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. We don't need one-sided propaganda from Moveon.org.
    georgeou
    • What is so complex about it?

      Interested in your thoughts.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Will blog on it

        John Carroll has also been very thoughtful on this complex subject.
        georgeou
  • ludicrous laws

    Add SIRA to this list.

    http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/06/worst-bill-youve-never-heard-of.html
    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004721.php
    http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/05/section-115-amendment.html
    http://www.copybites.com/2006/05/copyright_offic_1.html
    http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

    What this does is makes it so that copies in RAM are

    1.) not covered by fair use to understand this you have to go back to the Copyright Act ?104 Study done in 2000 (Published in 2001). Part of this study was to see if all digital media should fall under section 117.

    http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html

    [i] We believe that there is a strong case that the making of a buffer copy in the course of streaming is a fair use. Fair use is a defense that may limit any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, including the reproduction right implicated in temporary copies. In order to assess whether a particular use of the works at issue is a fair use, section 107 requires the consideration and balancing of four mandatory, but nonexclusive, factors on a case-by-case basis.[/i]

    This bill makes it so that it is not a fair use copy but a copy that must be licensed.

    2.) A royalty-free compulsory license that applies to incidental copies for non-interactive streaming, is created but there is a big catch 22: the music service may not take "affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause, or induce the making of reproductions of music works by or for end-users.". This further erodes home recording. It infact could ban digital home recording devices such as the XM Radio recorder.

    Even the US copyright office has problems with this law.

    http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

    [i]?Copyright Office strongly urges that the SIRA not characterize streaming as a distribution or as a form of ?digital phonorecord delivery,? or DPD. A stream, whether interactive or noninteractive, is predominantly a public performance, although the various reproductions such a transmission requires makes it appropriate to address in section 115. A stream does not, however, constitute a ?distribution,? the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient; the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may temporarily exist on a recipient?s computer to facilitate the stream and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient simply do not qualify. Similarly, a stream should not be considered a DPD as that term is presently defined by 17 U.S.C. 115(d), because it most likely does not result in ?a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord.??[/i]

    and they have concerns over how the royalties will be used.

    [i]?[T]he Copyright Office has some concerns regarding designated agents? authority to collect and expend administrative fees. The SIRA appears to give designated agents too much discretion to use these fees - and even royalties collected under the license - to inappropriately fund tangential activities. The Office believes that the designated agents should be permitted to use such moneys only for activities directly related to licensing music works under section 115 and the collection and distribution of royalty fees. Administrative fees collected from licensees should not be used for other purposes, such as ?industry negotiations, rate setting proceedings, litigation, and legislative efforts,? as provided in proposed subparagraph115(e)(9)(D), and it is also questionable whether it is appropriate to apply royalty collections to those activities, rather than simply distribute those royalties to copyright owners after deducting the actual costs of collecting and distributing the royalties.?[/i]

    and

    [i]?SIRA appears to omit a provision governing one of the most significant and necessary aspects of any blanket licensing scheme: there is no provision that addresses how royalties are to be distributed by designated agents to copyright owners. Clearly, a designated agent should not have unfettered discretion to determine how the royalties it collects should be allocated among copyright owners. The statute should prescribe guidelines to ensure that royalties are distributed in a fair and equitable fashion, giving each copyright owner the royalties to which it is entitled based on the uses licensees make of that copyright owner?s works.?[/i]
    Edward Meyers
  • What really could happen....

    Free markets are the basis of this nation's modernization and productivity. But they also have a major flaw with which our constitution and laws constantly skirmish. That is, in a totally free economy, the richest entity will eventually come to rule over the rest, because it is in its own economic self-interest to do so.

    Now what is an "entity": an individual, a corporation, or even a group of corporations (which we call a "market") can be an entity.

    Our laws avoid this by and tamping down entities' self interest and putting out the fires. Its a precarious balance. In the case of the internet, an argument could be made that net independence is necessary, like a free press, and public education. Otherwise, free commerce and even free communication could be affected. You don't like what someone is saying? Just "narrow the pipe". Don't like what your competition is up to? Just pay someone to "narrow their pipe".

    Of course, people involved in the present debate might say; "pshaw...we don't want to do that". But remember: (almost) every entity will act in its own self interest...it's the government's responsibility to provide the gameboard and the rules of play.

    DA Ward
    Software Engineer
    daward@...