TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
|  Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
Filters that block content of course don't make more content available -- but such is the reasoning of DC lobbyists.
Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. So their statement is most likely accurate.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | And you have proof to back this statement up where ? Please share. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TK Junk Mail
How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? That's the ONLY kind of 'content' they release, and it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers.
In you world, at&t would block ALL mp3 files, and the only files you could get over the AT&T network would be itunes.
The entire concept is flawed from the start. If they ever DID try and 'filter' content, they would cause the net neutrality act to be signed into law the next day. THAT's what they should fear MORE than hollywood.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| said by karlmarx  :How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? That's the ONLY kind of 'content' they release, and it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers. Its a flawed logic approach.
What it sounds like is 'if we make only legal content available, companies will start promoting other $$ legal content and we'll be helping business... we're helping the economy by doing this, so we should be allowed to do it.'
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available? TCH actually stated that by blocking 'unauthorized' content, the content owners may be willing to distribute more content using more distribution mechanisms. Fairly straightforward concept if you ask me.said by karlmarx :What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content? I would propose that content owners be able to distribute their content in a manner that they desire. That may or may not require DRM. Also, that may or may not involve distribution via the Internet.said by karlmarx :it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers. I guess that would depend on whether consumers really want to enjoy content in an authorized manner or not.said by karlmarx :In you world, at&t would block ALL mp3 files, and the only files you could get over the AT&T network would be itunes. That's an ignorant comment. There are plenty of mp3 files floating around that the content owners have authorized. Besides, the file format is irrelevant.said by karlmarx :If they ever DID try and 'filter' content, they would cause the net neutrality act to be signed into law the next day. Good luck with that belief. And even if a "net neutrality" law is brought about and passed into law, it most likely won't be what a lot of individuals around this forum want. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. .. So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available?
I thought that big media talking point was dead after CBS folded on their threat to withhold HD programming if the broadcast flag wasn't implemented.
Did you not get the memo with the updated talking points? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| said by nasadude :So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available? You left out the keyword "illegal" when stating making less content available. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to openbox9
You already answered the problem. "Content owners MAY be willing". I'm willing to bet if they get this, they WON'T distribute content this way? Why? Because it's not their business model. Their business model is to FORCE YOU to be home WHEN they run their shows. THAT is the problem they have with DVR's and torrents.
The technology lets THE USER determine WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and HOW OFTEN they view the content.
So, any medium or technology that gives the CONSUMER more choices, is logically, BAD for the networks. THAT'S why they WON'T make content available.
DRM? It's not the law, it's the GOSPEL to the networks. DRM FORCES you to watch the commercials. That's why it sucks. DRM FORCES you to use the device THEY control. Again, content will NEVER be willing distributed in ANY manner that 's not 'old school'.
I'm a consumer. I want content. They don't give it to me in a format I WANT. Ergo, I use torrents. Seems that ME, and 25 MILLION other people think the same way. THAT'S why they can NEVER win. Until they control EVERY SINGLE piece of technology, they CAN'T prevent distribution. Look at HD DVD, look at BLU-RAY. BILLIONS spent to protect, and it's already cracked.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to openbox9
Actually karlmarx is basically right. The volume of pirate content, and the number of people accessing it, shows clearly that the prices of legal files are too high, the quality is too low (for example, DRM-impaired), or some combination of these.
For example, if mp3s were sold legally online for $0.05 without DRM, or TV episodes for a $0.50 and without DRM, it is likely that there would be less piracy and a big market for the legal sales.
On the other hand, suppression of piracy without any improvement in the legal offerings will be futile. The goal of the copyright cartel is not to "make more legal content available" but rather to get more money by maintaining their monopolies on the copyrighted works.
This is a separate issue from network neutrality. ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially. Letting them divide the internet into proprietary gardens would destroy much of its value to the public. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by swhx7 : ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially. So according to you, ISP's should be MANDATED to carry illegal content. It will be a cold day in hell before any law or regulation is passed to make that concept a reality.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Budd Lake, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :Filters that block content of course don't make more content available -- but such is the reasoning of DC lobbyists.
Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. So their statement is most likely accurate. It seems that this would be a step towards them losing "common carrier" status. I would imagine that would actually make them (T) more liable rather than less... |
|
Matt
Running Free
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by swhx7 : ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially. So according to you, ISP's should be MANDATED to carry illegal content. It will be a cold day in hell before any law or regulation is passed to make that concept a reality. No, but it's not their place to decide what is and is not legal or illegal content. They simply see a two-fold benefit here, if they filter "illegal" traffic, they feel they'll decrease traffic crossing their networks, and if they look like they are making a concerted effort to the content providers, they may get a more lucrative agreement with them.
I think the regulation of traffic is really at the heart of all of this ... they chose a half-assed method to bank the next 10-15 years of their revenues on and they are desperately trying to cut down on last mile traffic so they can hold up their charts and say, "See, 6 Mbps for data transfer on U-Verse is plenty!" ...
All ISP's need to stick to providing a dumb pipe. Let the content owners choose the DRM method they want to employ ...
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ |
|
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| reply to swhx7
We'll see. Amazon recently released a store that sells DRM-free mp3 files at at 256 bitrate (which is good enough for most consumers) with a pretty big catalog. Most people that want to pirate will still pirate regardless of the amount of "freedom" they have. A lot of people have a sense of entitlement, that's why they pirate music and movies, it's not because the quality is low or has DRM (although that is the reason for some people..a minority). Yet still, others are just plain socialists that like to "stick it to the man" because they feel no one should make any profits whatsoever, and if you do you're a tool the "megacorps"...karlmarx is case in point.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Matt
Re: Blocking illegal content encourages more legal content
This would be similar to me saying I'll the police must go and arrest all drivers without insurance/forged drivers licenses/unpaid tickets or are in the country illegally.
I HAVE to pay extra in California for 'uninsured' drivers (which shouldn't be on the road anyways), and typically, the police give many a slap on the wrist, and they end up driving without a license anyways.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by nasadude :So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available? You left out the keyword "illegal" when stating making less content available. as a matter of fact, I should have said "less legal content". That's what CBS threatened a while ago - they would not make content available without the broadcast flag.
Well, they got no broadcast flag, but they still made HD content available and guess what - the sky did not fall. |
|
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to TK Junk Mail
I don't think anybody has a problem with people getting busted for illegal activity. The problem here is that mistakes can be made. Similar to the 94,000 people (mostly black) in Florida for the 2000 presidential election who were purged from voter roles by Choicepoint. Choicepoint and/or the RNC had undertaken an effort to reduce democratic voter roles. They furnished a list of voters to the state of Florida, said they were felons. Turns out, the data was all wrong, and at least 91,000 of those people were innocent and legal voters. Unfortunately, with the presidential election being decided only by a few hundred votes, these 91,000 votes turned the election to our appointed president, Chimpy. Long story around the topic, but it gets back to the original point that data can be wrong. I don't want to be identified as a criminal, or a terrorist, or any other miscreant, by a company in the free market (AT&T), that has illegally participated in domestic spying. By their TOS, I could even be terminated as a customer just for typing this post and casting them in a negative light. Doesn't matter that everything I typed is out in the public domain. Corporations can not be allowed to have this much power. It too closely resembles a fascist state for my comfort. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by swhx7 : ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially. So according to you, ISP's should be MANDATED to carry illegal content. It will be a cold day in hell before any law or regulation is passed to make that concept a reality. freeways carry cars filled with illegal drugs, and it takes real police work to stop them. the fed doesnt make the DOT invent some sensor that inspects every car using an enterance ramp.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to ackman
More leftist drivel -- the purging of voter rolls is required under Florida law, and your numbers are way high by half at least. Oh, and don't forget the thousands of valid absentee ballots from military families that weren't counted, just as arbitrary.  |
|
benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by swhx7 : ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially. So according to you, ISP's should be MANDATED to carry illegal content. It will be a cold day in hell before any law or regulation is passed to make that concept a reality. Well yes, actually I do think so. To me, the ISP's job is to just be a pipe, nothing else.
Why does it frighten me about the idea of trying to find out whether content is legal or not? Well, one very good reason is that one must ask the question "Who make the decisions?" Or, is there a potential for abuse? Could this system be used to punish someone that some "higher up" doesn't like?
It's also analogous to checking all phone calls to decide whether illegal business is conducted (without a warrant). No, checking words doesn't help, because you can talk about illegal things without conducting illegal business. Ever talked about a recent murder or drug bust in casual conversation?
Then there's the question of whether this can even be enforced. I don't think it can be. Whether it's through P2P networks or even through private FTP servers, there's no way. Plus don't forget good old sneaker-net. CD-Rs and even DVD-Rs are pretty cheap, and the burners are cheap as well. |
|
