Internet Control

[rcranger9]

I was reading this (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/27/6732624-us-goes-on-offense-against-digital-piracy) article earlier. A little ways down in the article, one of the people arrested for owning a piracy website along Google and Facebook said that the government shouldn't control the internet because it would restrict free speech and creativity.



:alarm: Just so you know, I DO NOT support piracy. This thread is about whether the government should regulate the internet or not. :alarm:

[Nekowolf]

No. Although, I don't really support censorship in general aside from extreme cases. But there's another thing to consider here. Internet is not like television; it's not run by a company in the sense of, that company dictates what is produced and distributed. It's a collective. It's much, much, much bigger, as well as multinational. Even if there is some form of legislation that goes through that allows the government to do so, the sheer ability of cracking down would be ridiculous. We cannot do like, let's say China, does. Sure, we could "censor" a site by, probably, the only way I can actually think of. Blocking it. But even then, it are ways around it.

It would be sort of like Prohibition. Oh sure, they could try, but they'll fail, because it was just be too much effort, and people would find ways around it, anyway.

Now if you're talking strictly regarding things like piracy, also no. That should be the responsibility of the company; it's their product, not the country's. What government should do is look out for things like child pornography and things like that. Crimes of the sort that are not based on products of a private business, but of, well, how ever you want to define it. Now that doesn't mean that the government should do the equivalent of "knocking on everyone's door." They should look for suspicious activity, follow it up with investigation, and follow the standard rules.

I also have opinions on net neutrality, but I'm not sure if that would actually qualify as "government regulation" or not.

[Robodl95]

Like everything else, owning a piracy website does not qualify under "free speech and creativity" because it's breaking several other laws. I cannot cuss out the police officer under "free speech" because that would be breaking a law. In no way do I think that the government should regulate all our internet activity but the laws in the real world should still apply and be enforced online. The problem is that the internet is everywhere, there needs to be an international effort on this.

[Mistermook]

Like everything else, the law isn't always as clear as it should be and sometimes legal lines are drawn that are muddy or that shouldn't be drawn at all. If someone is hosting something illegal then I agree they're hosting at their own risk. If they're merely talking about piracy, acknowledging that such things exist elsewhere? Sometimes the law seems to think that this is a crime too, and I think it's akin to shutting down an author's poker game where murder mystery writers discuss ways to kill someone. I do realize that this makes law enforcement efforts somewhat problematic in such cases. I'm fine with that, just like I'm fine with not allowing cops to have everyone's DNA or listen to everyone's phone conversations even though such technologies are possible and would make vast inroads in solving cases. Our legal system's (in the US at least) basic premise isn't about solving the most cases, making the streets the safest, protecting everyone's financial interests the most, or being efficient - for better or for worse it's all about protecting the people who haven't committed crimes yet.

There's really no public safety and common welfare compulsion for regulation of the internet imo, though I've read some arguments from IP holders that differ, so I tend to fall on the anti-regulatory side of things for communications except where there's a clear precedent (like antitrust, normal copyright enforcement, etc). This isn't health care, firearms, or public roads - something that without the government providing regulatory oversight there's experience and practical issues declaring that people might die otherwise. This is about a more subtle regulatory compulsion, and one that's not based on a right at all but an arbitrary monopoly that's dispensed by the government to promote financial security. So I just don't see it. Of course the government can and should police the internet, but I simply don't see the need for regulations that might aid in policing it. There's no good reason for it, no pressing concern, and worst of all no good data except that earnestly promoted by IP holders.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

maybe its just the poverty in me speaking, but honestly, i cannot summon the tears to weep for a bunch of fat cats who're throwing a fit over not getting as much cash as they possibly can for a product that is most likely buggy/broken/badly made/honestly not worth the cash they ask for it.

...maybe.
maybe if i saw them distributing that wealth, maybe giving to charity or something a certain % of how much they make off of it, id be more concerned. as it stands, i have no sympathy for americas richest 1% if they lose $50k but still have $600k in the bank. i just dont agree with greed.

as for law enforcement online? good luck.

[Tempscire]

It would be sort of like Prohibition. Oh sure, they could try, but they'll fail, because it was just be too much effort, and people would find ways around it, anyway.
I don't think it'd be that ineffective. Most people aren't tech savvy. There would be a lot of folks stuck with the censorship because they simply don't know how to get around it or where to even start learning how.

I also have opinions on net neutrality, but I'm not sure if that would actually qualify as "government regulation" or not.
*snert* I know I've seen campaign ads that presented it as such, so why not? Ah, McCain...

(1) throwing a fit over not getting as much cash as they possibly can for a (2)product that is most likely buggy/broken/badly made/honestly (3)not worth the cash they ask for it.
1. Corporations are legally bound to make profit for the shareholders. Not trying to maximize profit leads to being fired. It's a screwed up system, but their "greed" is legally enshrined in their very existence.

2. That product is still their intellectual property, and they are entitled to all the rights thereof.

3. In pure economic terms, a product is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. If a company produces crap, and people keep buying that crap, and the company gets rich off that crap, they're hardly going to invest the resources to make not-crap.

[Robodl95]

...maybe. maybe if i saw them distributing that wealth, maybe giving to charity or something a certain % of how much they make off of it, id be more concerned. as it stands, i have no sympathy for americas richest 1% if they lose $50k but still have $600k in the bank. i just dont agree with greed.
You'd rather have a bunch of people lose their jobs? These aren't individual people these are companies that will have to lay off numerous people because they don't have enough money.

[acid_paradox]

I think it would be a bad idea. If we're talking about the U.S. just regulating it for their citizens, I think that that would be a violation of our rights. I mean, the internet is such a vast and influential place, if they can regulate and censor it, that would give the government more power than they're meant to have.

If it's going to be international regulation, that would probably fall apart. Every country has people with different beliefs and laws. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. First, it'll be pirated movies, next they'll take away our porn. Oh no! Please save the porn!

[Mistermook]

Part of the issue is Intellectual Property law re: Disney's 500lb Gorilla in the room and the patent lobbies. Intellectual property is an assigned monopoly of an idea or ideas, not a material property. It only exists by the grace of the government, so the various entities of entitlement seek redress for protection of those ideas from the government rather than "locking it up" like you'd do with a true property. And the whole notion of copyrights and patents wasn't intended to allow anyone to do that, it was intended to allow a short, finite time of entitlement where the property owner could make money off of the intangible before it fell into the public domain - what we've got now as a practical fact of legislation is perpetual and infinite monopoly for copyright and the Patent Office used as a foil for invention. That's really a similar sort of situation to what got us the US in the first place, with unenforceable levies against desired goods to benefit "far away" property rights. It necessarily has similar results - "smuggling" which in this day and age is things like software piracy and movie sharing.

I'm sympathetic to people wanting to make money. I like to make money too. It's nice. But the current plot of our legislation is broken and it's got consequences for breaking that legislation that could be imagined clearly by any student of history. Lock up an idea for too long and the populace will come unlock it for you. When you see the success of things like iTunes and Netflix versus "piracy" then I think it's clear that the whole thing should be completely hands off for government except in the most blatant cases covered under current legislation. Force the companies to adapt and you get competition that's supportable without the government being the underwriter of the business plan.

And more importantly, don't we have enough people locked up in the US already? Sometimes I think that people in the US won't be satisfied until everyone besides themselves has spent some time behind bars for the lamest of reasons.