Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[Drakkith]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

 

[Evo]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

You'll have to be much more specific since the internet is not a "thing". It is tens of thousands of pieces of independently, privately, corporately and government owned portions of data networks around the world that tentatively *agree* to connect to each other. Pieces of the internet come and go and change constantly as people buy, sell, go bankrupt, etc...

Are you talking about *rules* that some governments are trying to impose on owners of the pieces, mostly the major backbone carriers (IXC's)?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

China regulates their piece of the internet by censoring.

 

[Evo]

China regulates their piece of the internet by censoring.

So wouldn't this belong in P&WA? It's not about computers, it's about law.

 

[Drakkith]

You'll have to be much more specific since the internet is not a "thing". It is tens of thousands of pieces of independently, privately, corporately and government owned portions of data networks around the world that tentatively *agree* to connect to each other. Pieces of the internet come and go and change constantly as people buy, sell, go bankrupt, etc...

Are you talking about *rules* that some governments are trying to impose on owners of the pieces, mostly the major backbone carriers (IXC's)?

What does "regulation" mean first of all?

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What does "regulation" mean first of all?

Control

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 

[Evo]

Control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

That's the regulation of copyright infringement on the internet. So, that is one aspect.

 

[russ_watters]

Control

via law.

As opposed to the regulator on your gas line, which controls flow via pressure reduction...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I try to stay regular without any help from the govt thank you.

 

[Astronuc]

Regulation would not necessarily mean control as much as specifying and maintaining standards or rules of conduct or process, or establishing legal liabilities and sanctions.

From Wikipedia on regulation: "Regulation is the promulgation, monitoring and enforcement of rules. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility."

One aspect of the internet is commerce. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce.

Another aspect of the internet is 'publication', and the federal government regulates copyrights.

The FCC regulates airwaves (radio & TV transmissions). Internet complicates that.

Regulations can be found in sets of documents such as the Code of Federal Regulations and US Code.

 

[Drakkith]

I see. Well, it appears to be quite a conundrum! What to regulate, how to regulate, if to regulate...I mean we can't go around stealing all this media forever without consequence.

 

[Evo]

I see. Well, it appears to be quite a conundrum! What to regulate, how to regulate, if to regulate...I mean we can't go around stealing all this media forever without consequence.

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

 

[Borek]

if to regulate...

If it ain't broken, fix it till it is.

I doubt it is possible to keep the current copyright regulations in place for much longer, but I am not going to open this can of worms writing what I think.

 

[CAC1001]

Regulation of the Internet, or attempts at it, must be undertaken very cautiously IMO. If you look at the history of new mediums for information and communication, they almost always start out very open and with lots of innovation, only to then become subject to monopoly or oligopoly and thus extremely restricted and tightly-controlled. This happened with radio, television, motion pictures, music, etc...the Internet is the newest form of such communication, and as of late is very open, but could fall prey to this same thing if we are not careful.

There have been some who have said for example that Google should be regulated as a utility since it essentially has a monopoly on search. Thing is, there is no way to know for sure that this dominance of search will remain into the future. When Apple was preparing to enter the mobile phone industry, many thought the company very foolish, and said that the industry was consolidating down to about two major players, only then for Apple to come and revolutionize the industry with the iPhone. MySpace was thought to be the dominant social network for awhile too, then came Facebook. Even Google itself came after Yahoo.

So while a company like Google may seem so dominant now, it could get displaced at some point in the future, but the thing is, if the government starts regulating it as a utility, that inadverdently will likely give Google a permanent monopoly on search.

 

[SixNein]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

What constitutes stealing in the digital age?

 

[Drakkith]

What constitutes stealing in the digital age?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Galteeth]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

As compared to practically every other sector of life, the internet is extremely unregulated. This is largely because of the way it was designed, as a decentralized form of informatiom sharing. There are those who believe that everything should be regulated, and the internet suffers from a dangerous lack of government supervision. While governments can target individuals based on their internet activity, it is extremely difficult to target a particular activity as a whole on the internet. The internet is also a medium in which information can be shared and organization can be done outside of centralized outlets, and this fundamentally threatens existing power structures. It is similar as to how the printing press threatened the authority of the church, as previously church scribes were the primary source of publishing.

 

[Galteeth]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

Perhaps, but at a certain level of ease the point becomes moot. The traditional notions of intellectual copyright when it comes to creative works, and really information of all kinds, are rapidly being annihilated and there is no evidence that this trend will reverse in the foreseeable future. Of course there is no consensus that the transfer of information constitutes stealing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

Is this a serious question?

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

That actually makes things a lot clearer. I was not aware of this.

 

[SixNein]

Is this a serious question?

As a matter of fact, it's a very serious question.

In a digital world, what is stealing?

 

[SixNein]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

You are correct sir.

Copyright infringement means to violate another person's government granted exclusive right over a work. Patent and trademark infringement are other examples of the same thing.

 

[Evo]

As a matter of fact, it's a very serious question.

In a digital world, what is stealing?

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

 

[Evo]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

 

[Andre]

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner.

Agree. Obviously it's not only the copier who is at fault, but even more so the person who made the article available for downloading.

Interesing question however is if the downloader would have bought it, had he had to pay for it and also if the larger illegal distribition could benefit the orginal producer a bit, gaining more popularity that way?

 

[Evo]

Agree. Obviously it's not only the copier who is at fault, but even more so the person who made the article available for downloading.

Interesing question however is if the downloader would have bought it, had he had to pay for it and also if the larger illegal distribition could benefit the orginal producer a bit, gaining more popularity that way?

Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have. If it's free, albeit illegally, I'd dare say more harm than good is done. Something we won't know. Even otherwise honest people will download something if it's "free", many not even realizing it's illegal.

I admit I like to watch or listen to things online, like on youtube. Some apparently violated copyright because they were later yanked. I, however, DO like to own copies and do buy most of what I watch or listen to online. I'm planning to buy several DVD's of shows this christmas that I could download illegally. Just call me honest.

I have nothing against people just watching or listening online as long as they don't download it.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

It's pretty strange. Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it. So its "published" if and only if software can read it. Whether the public can read it doesn't matter. Weird, huh?

 

[Evo]

It's pretty strange. Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it. So its "published" if and only if software can read it. Whether the public can read it doesn't matter. Weird, huh?

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

 

[Borek]

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

Not exactly. If I will upload an interesting movie that I have (legally) to my website and I will let you download it (you personally, not everyone and his dog) for free, that will count as a fair use.

When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

No, no and no.

But I wonder how much of the $13 Junior paid for the Kindle edition of Snow Crash I am reading now went to Stephenson. My bet is not a single cent, it is a pure profit of Bantam Spectra.

How else are artists to make their money?

© is abused by the publishers, and publishers care about artists about as much as they care about the public. All they care about is profit.

Basically it is a question of whether the model we have now - the one based on copyright law - is the only one possible. Logic says "no". There are other possible models, that will produce different markets, it just happened that we landed where we are now. Now publishers will do everything to save the market as it works now, because they already know it gives them profits. That includes telling everyone that the model we have is the only one possible and lobbying for that everywhere, plus lobbying for things like Copyright Term Extension Act.

 

[Evo]

Ah, but people don't even realize that old tv reruns on tv pay royalties to the actors. There is a lot that is not understood about how the original people get paid.

Sure making a copy for personal use is allowed. Sure you can loan a copy. The problem is when you upload it so that the entire population of Earth can get it for free and the people that made it get screwed.

Because of the internet, we need to rethink what is fair. Back in the old days when physical copies had to be made or used, it limited the amount of "free" use, guaranteeing some money to the legal owner.

You sell software, so obviously you would not be happy if everyone could get your product for free and put you out of business.