AT&T Defends Network Filter Plans > 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.

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.

said by karlmarx:

How does blocking 'illegal' content make MORE legal content available?

said by karlmarx:

What are you proposing, that the only content available is DRM megacorp controlled content?

said by karlmarx:

it has ZERO value to the vast majority of consumers.

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.

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.

said by karlmarx:

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.

said by karlmarx:

The technology lets THE USER determine WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and HOW OFTEN they view the content.

said by swhx7:

ISPs should be regulated to the extent necessary to make them transmit all content impartially.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

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.

said by Matt:

No, but it's not their place to decide what is and is not legal or illegal content.

said by Matt:

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.

said by Matt:

All ISP's need to stick to providing a dumb pipe. Let the content owners choose the DRM method they want to employ ...

said by openbox9:

So who's place is it? The end users'?Bingo. And from a business perspective, they are both valid IMO.Sounds great. Who pays for the "dumb pipe"? Secondly, the content owners are choosing their DRM method, but customers are continually circumventing the DRM without permission.

said by Matt:

1) Let the copyright holders, legal system and law enforcement decide. Not the builders and providers of the road. You don't see your local Department of Transportation out writing speeding tickets do you?

said by Matt:

2) They are valid, but ethically very questionable.

said by Matt:

3) I already pay my ISP for a connection to the internet. I am told it is a XMbps/XMbps connection. The server I am accessing is paying for their end of the pipe. Both ends are paid for.

said by Answer Guy:

Don't forget that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

said by jester121:

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.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

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.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

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.

said by swhx7:

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.

said by swhx7:

On the other hand, suppression of piracy without any improvement in the legal offerings will be futile.

said by swhx7:

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.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Blocking illegal content makes available more legal content as content providers feel more confident that they aren't being ripped off. ..

said by nasadude:

So that means not blocking illegal content makes less content available?

said by openbox9:

You left out the keyword "illegal" when stating making less content available.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

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.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

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.

said by fatness:

Let's see if I understand this.

I have 2 tomatoes. One is called "legal" and the other is called "illegal".
I throw away 1 tomato, the "illegal" one.
This leaves me with more than 1 tomato.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Your analogy is faulty. This is closer to the mark.

The market selling tomatoes gets 20 gross a week to sell. But neighborhood punks steal 90% of them. The market will go belly up unless the punks are stopped. The market hires an armed guard to stop the thefts. The market can then sell all 20 gross of tomatoes and stay in business. The profit they make allows them to increase their inventory and sell corn and cabbages as well.

said by openbox9:

While your argument used to be sound, now that we are in the 21st century, I believe that you will see your definition of theft change from merely tangible assets to something to include digital products. Loss of revenue in a digital world is similar to loss of product in the past.

said by bmn:

Not entirely... Loss of product in the past due to theft meant that no revenue could be generated from a given product. If someone stole, hypothetically, a Lexus out of the lot next to your house, the dealer loses 100% on that theft. He has no ability to make any money on the product that was taken.

With digital content, "theft" is really copying, so the original content owner doesn't lose the ability to make money from it, instead they only lose a portion of the revenue they other might make from the product (if even anything - think broadcast TV).

The two situations are vastly different.

said by bmn:

The two situations are vastly different.

said by openbox9:

I disagree. The two situations are very similar.

What happens when the digital product is distributed without compensation to the point that the producer can no longer cover costs and/or justify production.

You can't continue to use old definitions in a new environment. The definitions need to adapt to the new setting.

said by Kearnstd:

in another(P2P) you dont really cause any notable loss as no inventory is lost.