Kerry diary

[ProSense]

on net neutrality

Also posted here

[karynnj]

1. Thanks

[beachmom]

2. Thanks. He has some good comments in there, too.

I am bummed that he didn't react to the question about the draconian law introduced by Pat Leahy that would lead to unfettered blocking of websites because someone says there is copyright infringement going on. I guess what I find the most troubling is that . . . Pat Leahy introduced it, and it's also bipartisan. I'm against illegal file sharing, but am very concerned that in the effort to stopping that illegal behavior, ALL of our rights are trampled on in the process.

[karynnj]

3. I think he should have responded to that as well

I had read about the law and the article did not mention who the sponsor was - and I was shocked that it was Leahy. I would suspect that it means that Leahy really does not understand the internet.

It really seems that there does need to be a law written only after careful thought and a real understanding of how the internet works now - with someone to monitor the internet as it continues to change to recommend changes to the law if they are needed. Your posts on copywrite and the DU suit really suggest that there may not be real law on what can and can't be quoted. I really begin to wonder if the 4 paragraph rule is real. Some of the contests quotes were well within that. It reminds me of the way every student I went to college with thought there was a university rule on how long you had to wait for a late professor, elaborately defined by the professor's status. In a Folklore class (I needed a break - I was a math/econ major), the professor showed us that our college had no such rule - and he listed several other schools that were the same. Could that "rule" also be something that never was the law?

At any rate, it seems that there are conflicting interests and a resolution is needed that allows free discussion, including using clips for backup - while not allowing whole scale stealing of a content provider's intellectual property.

[beachmom]

4. Well a few things:

First off, the music industry (and Hollywood) have been pursuing an enforcement solution to the illegal downloading problem for a decade. And quite plainly, it has not worked!! Not only that, they have spent more money on lawyers than have they recovered in amounts awarded in these lawsuits. It's a total joke. At the moment there is a "three strikes and you're out law" that was passed in France. The way that law works is that the ISP is in charge of policing the problem, sending warning letters until the third time for which the offender has his/her internet connection cut off. I find this to be completely draconian, especially since a person is essentially guilty until proven innocent. So far, it seems the U.S. is not going down this particular road but . . . .

The Obama Justice Department has many former members of the RIAA in it now. What this means is that Justice is going to be more sympathetic to the RIAA's point of view, and not to our civil liberties and basic rights. That really is disturbing. And yet the Right has been silent on the issue, which I find strange. Here is a big target (RIAA lawyers at the Justice Dept.!!), but the Right holds its fire. So we really are in danger of "bipartisanship".

Finally, I would prefer that those in the entertainment industry and new entrepeneurs interested in music/movies, etc. come up with a new business model to deal with the internet. There are some promising things like music streaming services (like Pandora, and overseas in Europe, Spotify) where people could get what they want and have a lot of it paid by ads or a reasonably priced subscription. The problem is the music industry sabotage themselves over and over again. At the moment they are preventing Spotify from even coming to the U.S. with their unreasonable licensing demands. So I really don't know what is going to happen in the future. But what I do know is that I will be opposed to any governmental intervention that takes away freedom of speech or the rights of a website or individual to respond to charges in a court of law before having their internet or website shut down. The truth is the music industry has been inept dealing with these illegal services, so now they want the government to do draconian things on their behalf? But of course, copyright infringement is a CIVIL issue, not criminal. Why should government be doing the bidding of large corporations? That's the big question. And I say all of this while being sick as to what has happened to artists and musicians not earning enough because "fans" can't be bothered with buying their recordings.

[beachmom]

5. Just updating on the Leahy bill that will give Justice the power to shut down sites

if it is "dedicated to copyright infringement":

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023238-38.html

It has passed the judiciary committee unanimously. I think what it means is that what used to require going to court & a trial would mean the Justice Department could do it on its own, which gives me concern. However, it would affect only American websites, so all the Russians have to do is end their site with a different prefix.

I am concerned about this law because it seems to say it has no faith in the courts, and wants Justice to do it with a warrant but no trial. Is that even constitutional? I don't know.

No idea what kind of prospect it has of passing Congress. The Chamber of Commerce and the Teamsters support the bill.