You Tube gets to live a little longer

[Grendeel]

Basically viacom sued you tube saying the company should pre screen all postings for copyright infringement.  This would pretty much end you tube if viacom is successful. You tubes position is that any request to remove content that infringes on someones copyrights will be removed immediately when brought to their attention.

In a ruling today you tube won its case

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/


You Tube gets to live....for now.  The case will be appealed, so they arent out of the woods yet.  It will eventually end up in the SCOTUS.  There, it should be interesting.  SCOTUS has a decidedly business point of view these days and since both parties are business', the decision isnt predictable. A loss for you tube would have far reaching implications for the common  internet user.

Another interesting event is happening as well.  The FCC and select lobbyists (all of whom are internet providers and telecom companies) are meeting behind closed doors to hammer out a negotiation presently stalled in congress which will determine who regulates the internet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575321283834920928.html

These companies want to throttle some sites and even block others while at the same time slow down bit torrents and things of that nature.  Essentially they want to regulate what traffic goes on the internet through them, while other parties feel the FCC should be the ones regulating it.  Again, if these companies win out, it will have far reaching implications for the average internet user.  

[Avelandra]

On this one, the FCC should be the one to do the regulating. I have never thought i'd say that, but alas, the big companies want to send data from people who pay them with higher priorities. The FCC wants net neutrality and threaten to re-classify the ISPs as Tele-comms, so they could regulate them.

The technology exists, I know comcrap already has the capability to priorities traffic to an extreme degree, other ISPs cant be far behind.

If only the internet was considered a public utility....

[Shadowwolf]

The FCC right now is looking for ideas and suggestions on broadband regulations

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20008036-266.html?tag=mncol

[Docsamson]

On this one, the FCC should be the one to do the regulating. I have never thought i'd say that, but alas, the big companies want to send data from people who pay them with higher priorities. The FCC wants net neutrality and threaten to re-classify the ISPs as Tele-comms, so they could regulate them.

The technology exists, I know comcrap already has the capability to priorities traffic to an extreme degree, other ISPs cant be far behind.

If only the internet was considered a public utility....

Currently, the internet is falling under common carrier statutes that allow it to operate with unregulated traffic flow, with no liability for your ISP because of illegal traffic.  However, the ability to remain a Common Carrier is based on your non-regulation of traffic.  Currently, all traffic shaping by ComCast is "dumb".  It merely restricts the general flow of traffic for high-volume users, throttling your total bandwidth.  What the ISPs wish to do, in many situations, is "smart" shaping.  Say your ISP is ComCast, and ComCast has a contract with Microsoft to use Bing for their search engine.  You can no longer access Google, and all attempts to access Google get redirected to Bing.  This is in extreme, but is the very clear end-goal for the termination of net neutrality.  Now, what pretty much every Net Neutrality advocate wants to see happen here is one of the first times a large corporation will actually get the full privileges of being a person, while also under the full liability.  *If* net neutrality goes away, and smart shaping/traffic redirection becomes a reality, ISPs will have shown themselves able to police their networks for illegal activity.  So, step 2 is to get them to lose Common Carrier status, and then use their newfound liability to prosecute for all illegal activity pursued on their networks.  This would, quite literally, include everything from music piracy to terrorism.

[Shadowwolf]

Yea, the Smart Shaping thing is of huge concern for things like the Comcast buy of NBC Universal that got announced late last year which is still awaiting regulatory approval. If say Comcast buys NBC Universal, they can then prioritize bandwidth to sites that specialize in NBC/Universal content and theres nothing illegal about it right now. It also means that they can slow down or essentially "block" traffic to competitor related sites if they wanted to without reprisal as well.

[Docsamson]

Yea, the Smart Shaping thing is of huge concern for things like the Comcast buy of NBC Universal that got announced late last year which is still awaiting regulatory approval. If say Comcast buys NBC Universal, they can then prioritize bandwidth to sites that specialize in NBC/Universal content and theres nothing illegal about it right now. It also means that they can slow down or essentially "block" traffic to competitor related sites if they wanted to without reprisal as well.

The thing is, doing so right now would show that they have control over traffic based on its specific content, which would revoke Common Carrier status.  The largest push behind the ISPs refusing the current net neutrality is that they want an amendment to Common Carrier status, to allow them to have "premium traffic services", while still being considered a Common Carrier and being granted all the privileges and immunities it has.  This is what people don't want to see happen, as it actually grants a corporation an extremely large number of rights while shielding them from all sorts of reprisals.

For a more negative image of what this could allow, say you've got Comcast, and Comcast decides that the goals of Planned Parenthood go against its corporate ethos.  All PP traffic going across Comcast's infrastructure is now slowed, neutered, or otherwise blocked.  This isn't just if you're a subscriber, this is across their network.  Any router, any set of cable, any branch in your connection from A to Z that touches some of Comcast's infrastructure is eligible to be shaped and controlled by their software, and they want to be able to do it with no repercussions.

[Shadowwolf]

They dont do it yet but theres serious concern they can.

[Docsamson]

They dont do it yet but theres serious concern they can.

That's what I'm saying.  The entire idea of them being a common carrier rests upon them being unable to police usage based on content.  Proving that they can, then maintaining all of the benefits of a common carrier with none of the penalties is pretty disgusting, in terms of a limitation of corporate liability.

[Valerian]

 Another interesting story about the internet and government control

http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm?omnRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rense.com%2F

[Trismus]

yay! Government authority in more aspects of my life. Or is it corporate authority? Is there a difference?

As most of you know I am psychotically pro-business. I like it when people make money and lead luxurious, non-violent lives. However, just because I'm pro-business and pro-freemarket doesn't mean I am "pro corporate". I think the tool of "the corporation" is a great thing.

But any tool can be used for evil in the right hands. Viacom is evil. I hate hate hate them. I used to work for Warner Music Group... which was (and still is) owned by Viacom. They don't care about freedom of speech unless it serves their agenda. That is why I avoid all of their media subsidiaries... Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, etc.

I'm going to go cuddle with my rifles.

[dharq]

Woot! Another rabid capitalist!  Capitalism != Corporatism...

See, I think the gov't should actively work to generate competition for the corporations through tax incentives and regulations that encourage small businesses to enter the market.

But that won't happen.. not enough money lining the gov't pocket if that were the case...

[Goz]

yay! Government authority in more aspects of my life. Or is it corporate authority? Is there a difference?

As most of you know I am psychotically pro-business. I like it when people make money and lead luxurious, non-violent lives. However, just because I'm pro-business and pro-freemarket doesn't mean I am "pro corporate". I think the tool of "the corporation" is a great thing.

But any tool can be used for evil in the right hands. Viacom is evil. I hate hate hate them. I used to work for Warner Music Group... which was (and still is) owned by Viacom. They don't care about freedom of speech unless it serves their agenda. That is why I avoid all of their media subsidiaries... Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, etc.

I'm going to go cuddle with my rifles.

i second that cuddle with rifles... and raise you a cuddle with satan.... booyaa

[Kothnok]

Corporations started out as heavily regulated government constructs to build large ticket items like canals and whatnot that were "in the public's interest" and employees / shareholders were still liable for their debts and held accountable for any wrongdoings.  Once they gained fake autonomy with a court decision that corporations were legally considered persons under the law, they've been given all the rights and privileges of an individual without the liability that goes along with it. Corporations cannot be put in jail, the employees/shareholders cannot be held liable to pay back any debts they incur, and a host of other things that make them both the most enticing way to do business and the biggest scourge against a democracy since the time when slaves were legally regarded as property  (ie. people were property, now we've gone the other way and have deemed property as people).


There's obviously much more to the argument, but that's my take on it "in a nutshell".

[Grendeel]

Im of the opposite viewpoint.  Companies this day and age are morally bankrupt (the ones listed on the stock exchange).  You can see this in the financial sector, oil sector, coal sector (mining), or just pick a major sector and i will find a morally bankrupt company.

Being a responsible company is a thing of the past (not including small business).  Its sad cause it doesnt have to be either/or.   Responsibility to the public and making money used to be the norm for companies.  This day and age, eeking out every possible penny, takes priority over doing the right....and safe thing.  Two examples:

1.  BP     When Clinton was president he appointed a person by the name of Tom Kitos to head the Minerals and Management Service.  Under him a paper was developed stating

MMS said in early 2000, in a notice to lessees, that it planned to require oil companies operating in deep-water to use new oil-spill predictions specifically designed for deep water.

as well

In 2001, the then-head of the MMS environmental division wrote a paper that warned "the oil spill trajectory models currently used by the oil industry for the preparation of oil spill response plans may not be adequate for deep water."

taken from

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325131111637728.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0&mg=reno-wsj#printMode

The plan was never implemented and all oil companies continued to use the preparation model for oil spills that occur in shallow waters and on the surface of the water.   The reason it wasnt implemented was because there was a change at MMS.  The Bush administration brought in its own person (got her start in the oil industry and has strong ties to it) to run the department.  Cheney held secret meetings with only energy companies to develop policies going forward.   What we ended up with is a regulatory board "captured" by the industry.  Capturing this regulatory system involved giving positions in MMS to long time industry operatives. It also involved bribery, prostitutes, drugs and money and gifts.   It even went so far as to have industry personnel right the saftey reports in pencil and then have the actual inspectors go over it in pen.   This is how corrupt and morally bankrupt this industry has become.

2.  The coal mining industry.  This gentleman name Blankenship.. ah heck i was gonna type a bunch of stuff but this link does a far better job then i ever could

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/is_massey_ceo_don_blankenship_pure_evil.php

There is also the "buying a judge" who was ruling on safety issues before this West Virginas state court.  He contributed millions of dollars to the judges political campaign and took him on trips to the French Riveria.    This guy is utterly contempable.

A  quick mention of the financial industry  485 charged with mortgage fraud and more to come.


Now im not saying ALL companies are this bad cause there are some still respectable ones out there.  What i am saying is, in general, the day and age of corporate responsibility is long gone. Regulatory boards are mandatory if citizens want to protected from corporate greed......that is independant regulatory boards.  Without this, these things are going to continue forever.

[Grendeel]

Reaganomics

Reaganomics (a portmanteau of Reagan and economics  attributed to Paul Harvey[1]) refers to the economic policies promoted by the U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to:[2]

   1. Reduce government spending,
   2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
   3. Reduce government regulation of the economy,
   4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Here is an interesting article with many graphs on what has happened since this philosophy has taken a foothold. 
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Take a look at those graphs....those trends are astounding